|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
Google's assertion is, plain and simple, the API is "not a work of
imaginative fiction."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Christian on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
The amount of imaginative work involved is not relevant. The API performs a
function, and other works must in turn conform to the API to perform their
functions. Thus its level of protection under copyright law is different.
Writing decent APIs for any but the most trivial purpose can be a tremendous
work of imagination. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 03 2013 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
The quoted sentence is the very first sentence of the filing.
"INTRODUCTION
The Java Application Programming Interface ("API") is not a work of
imaginative fiction."
It's not even qualified as in "with respect to copyright laws."
They are starting off with a questionably statement. Surely they need to begin
with a rock solid foundation. Otherwise they lose the reader before the
argument can unfold.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
