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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|