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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Imaginative is immaterial to this argument | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No. Imaginitive fiction has a narrative
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 03:06 PM EDT
An API does not have a narrative. You know, a sequence of
scenes that unfold as one reads the work.

All writing has style choices, all writing reflects an
underlying aesthetic. That doesn't make it fiction.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Substaintainly A Work of fiction or not?
Authored by: 351-4V on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 03:12 PM EDT
So you are saying that because the API might contain a few elements of imagination, that it is fully copyrightable?

The way I read the case work cited, the claimed work would need to be substantially imaginative to qualify for protection. This API and any other API I would assert, is substantially functional and therefore deserving of only the barest protection of copyright if any at all.

Your attempt to invoke full copyright protection on a work that has only the faintest of imaginative expression while maintaining a substantially functional reason for being is as to declare a beach made of brown sand "a white sand beach" if it contains only one grain of white sand.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sorry, the plot fails
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:36 PM EDT
I challenge you to find someone who reads java APIs for their
"inventiveness". I suggest that the only people who read them at all
do so because they *have* to, for functional reasons. I doubt if even the
author had inventiveness in mind when writing it. All this amazing creativeness
Oracle describes only appeared after the lawyers converted the white space to
dollar signs.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Work of fiction or not?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:50 PM EDT
OK, you've argued that it's imaginitive. That doesn't make it fiction.

In fact, API design is hard work. IMHO, Java is a very good API. A lot of very
good work went into it. But "took work" is not equivalent to
"copyrightable" - which kind of renders your argument pointless.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Imaginative is immaterial to this argument
Authored by: JonCB on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 08:04 PM EDT
Not sure if you posted this before the update with the text
but the answer to your point is clearly outlined in section
5d.

"""
Originality and creativity are relevant primarily to the
threshold section 102(a) copyright-eligibility inquiry, not
to the section 102(b) filtration stage that concerned the
district court here.
"""

In summary, The district court found (and Google does not
contest) that the API is original and creative enough to
qualify for eligibility under 102(a). However it gets
excluded under section 102(b) for being functional.

Creativity has no bearing on being excluded from protection
for being functional. Indeed in both Sony and Sega, the
components that were denied copyright protection were both
very creative and original. But because they were software
interfaces necessary for compatibility, they are not
protected by copyright.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The copyright protects the creative aesthetic expression fixed in a medium
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 02:44 AM EDT
Have you identified copyright-protected creative, aesthetic, expression copied
by Google in Android that was anything other than 'de minimis and thus
non-infringing when compared to the 2.8 million lines of code in the class
libraries of the registered Java 2 SE version 5.0 platform?'.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Work of fiction or not?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 07:14 AM EDT
Google doesn't dispute the originality of the Java API:
Oracle argues that the Java API deserves special treatment because it is "original," "creative," "intuitive," "attractive," "appealing," "intricate," "efficient," and "user-friendly." Those characteristics are relevant to whether the Java API clears the low "originality" threshold set by section 102(a). The district court found that it does, and Google does not dispute that finding.
But there is still section 102(b), that basically says, that anything, that is needed to achieve interoperability, isn't copyrightable, even if section 102(a) applies. That's why Google refers to it as a "filter" throughout the brief.
Now Oracle claims, that the Java API is original to such an amount, that section 102(b) shouldn't apply, and that is, what Google disputes.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Work of fiction or not?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 11:58 PM EDT
No wonder I have a hard time with the Java
API, it is just imaginary and fictitious.
I much rather the APIs based on Computer
Science and thus are mathematical and
logical.

Now I got to go find that Mathematical
function sine of theta. Do you think I
would find it under double java.lang.math.
sin(double theta). ? You know for the Java
language math class library function of
(normally written as) sin(theta).

Ohhh.

In case you couldn't tell, I have my
tongue in my cheek mainly for grins, but
also making a point with exaggerated
humor.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Story of sin - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:27 PM EDT
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 )