Changeset - f3585ce68db1
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Tony Sebro (keynote2k) - 10 years ago 2014-03-19 16:35:09
tony@sfconservancy.org
updated analysis.
1 file changed with 1 insertions and 1 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -1404,25 +1404,25 @@ obvious to contain any original expression.
 
In the case of Oracle America v. Google, 872 F. Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2012),
 
the Northern District of California District Court examined the question of 
 
whether the application program interfaces (APIs) associated with the Java
 
programming language are entitled to copyright protection.  While the 
 
court expressly declined to rule whether all APIs are free to use without 
 
license (872 F. Supp.2nd 974 at 1002), the court held that the command 
 
structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.
 
Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as
 
both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the 
 
First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for 
 
compatability'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and
 
Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),
 
and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S 102(b).  
 
and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S 102(b). 
 

	
 
Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly
 
detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve
 
clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of
 
the defendant or overaggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.  
 

	
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 

	
 
\chapter{Modified Source and Binary Distribution}
 
\label{source-and-binary}
 

	
 
In this chapter, we discuss the two core sections that define the rights
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)