By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), June 1, 2012 3:36 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto@gmail.com) on 6/1/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>>Oracle loses the case. Google wins. Android will not be "taxed" by Oracle on cell phones and tablets.
>
>This ruling does far more than this. It removes a weapon from the legal arsenal
>of Microsoft, Apple, IBM and other lock-you-in vendors in the fight against those
>who wish to do third-party implementations of their technology stacks. The other
>large remaining threat are patents obviously. But for technology and competition
>in the IT sector this is already a huge step forward.
It is good to be made into case law, but really how big is it actually? Has anyone actually threatened or brought action against third party implementing their APIs before? Any CPU vendors try to claim ISA as copyrightable? (it's basically an API for particular functionality).
As far as I know, companies have attacked from different angles. Hercules was simply not given license for mainframe OS; Intel sued x86 clones for patent infringement and copyright infringement of microcode; Microsoft makes threats about patents.
I suspect copyrighting of APIs was recognized as pretty flimsy.
---------------------------
>>Oracle loses the case. Google wins. Android will not be "taxed" by Oracle on cell phones and tablets.
>
>This ruling does far more than this. It removes a weapon from the legal arsenal
>of Microsoft, Apple, IBM and other lock-you-in vendors in the fight against those
>who wish to do third-party implementations of their technology stacks. The other
>large remaining threat are patents obviously. But for technology and competition
>in the IT sector this is already a huge step forward.
It is good to be made into case law, but really how big is it actually? Has anyone actually threatened or brought action against third party implementing their APIs before? Any CPU vendors try to claim ISA as copyrightable? (it's basically an API for particular functionality).
As far as I know, companies have attacked from different angles. Hercules was simply not given license for mainframe OS; Intel sued x86 clones for patent infringement and copyright infringement of microcode; Microsoft makes threats about patents.
I suspect copyrighting of APIs was recognized as pretty flimsy.
| Topic | Posted By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Ruling: APIs not copyrightable | _Arthur | 05/31/12 04:06 PM |
| Ruling: APIs not copyrightable | Gabriele Svelto | 06/01/12 02:40 AM |
| Ruling: APIs not copyrightable | anon | 06/01/12 03:36 AM |
| Ruling: APIs not copyrightable | Gabriele Svelto | 06/01/12 03:50 AM |
| Ruling: APIs not copyrightable | _Arthur | 06/01/12 04:26 AM |
| MIPS has some *patented* (but not copyrighted) instructions ... | Mark Roulo | 06/01/12 09:08 AM |
| MIPS has some *patented* (but not copyrighted) instructions ... | David Kanter | 06/01/12 09:47 AM |
| MIPS has some *patented* (but not copyrighted) instructions ... | Mark Roulo | 06/01/12 09:56 AM |
| MIPS has some *patented* (but not copyrighted) instructions ... | rwessel | 06/01/12 12:36 PM |
| MIPS has some *patented* (but not copyrighted) instructions ... | _Arthur | 06/01/12 02:04 PM |
| MIPS has some *patented* (but not copyrighted) instructions ... | Wilco | 06/01/12 03:37 PM |
| Ruling: APIs not copyrightable | John Evans | 06/01/12 06:10 PM |
| Ruling: APIs not copyrightable | _Arthur | 06/02/12 05:15 AM |
