decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
...but that's not all | 115 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why do they care?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 08:34 AM EST
I'd like to see an Amicus in support of Google by Samba.org...
;)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

To name a few
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 09:02 AM EST
Wine, ReactOS, Mono, Samba, the package that implements
enough of the API to allow wireless NIC Windows drivers to
work on Linux. I'm sure there are more. Then a big area web
services, which is all about APIs and it's easy to replace a web
service just by reimplementing it's API which has to be
distributed in an easy manner so that clients can actually
connect to them.

The scary part of this argument is that it could be used to claim
ownership over programs written in those languages that by
necessity implement an interface declared in the API. An
interface is just the method declarations with no implementing
functionality.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

...but that's not all
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 10:09 AM EST

I see a conspiracy here between Microsoft and Oracle to put the boot to Google. Losing the right to employ Java's SSO in Android would be a staggering blow to Google. Both Microsoft and Oracle would do just about anything to destroy Android, whatever other benefits they may incur from a favourable ruling, which actually could be a mixed blessing to them.

There must be instances where Microsoft or Oracle themselves use somebody else's API. We need to identify those instances if we can and point out the hypocrisy.

Another issue obliquely related comes to mind. In the event of a ruling where the SSO is deemed copyrightable, a complication may arise when calling an Open Source DLL from a proprietary program. AFAIK, that is allowed under the GPL, with the condition that if you distribute the DLL along with your program, you must also distribute its source code. However, your proprietary software is necessarily going to employ the SSO of that DLL in order to interface with it. Hypothetically, could then the copyright holder of that interface stop you from using the GPL'd DLL in that manner, unless you also open the source for your proprietary code?

Now this may be out to lunch, but could such a potential be used in retaliation against Microsoft/Oracle? Could they be threatened by such a thing into dropping the appeal even? These two - Microsoft & Oracle - are not doing the world any favour by insisting the SSO of a program can be copyrighted. These companies need to know what they are attempting to accomplish is unacceptable behaviour!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle opened Pandora's Box
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 03:46 AM EST
when they attempted a defense that raised the question whether or not
their API's structure sequence order were covered under copyright law.
They got their answer.

CAFE maybe the one force that can control the beast that Oracle let out of the box.
To reverse the federal court's decision they will have to determine API's are not functional
and can be protected by copyright. Can they then ignore a thorny problem?

How can a language be both open source but unusable if its API's structure, sequence and
order can be copyrighted? More unforeseen consequences when the box was opened.
But CAFE might breeze through that issue without scratch.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )