Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The implementation of the language. They copied Oracle's code.
|
The amount of code literally copied was very small. (I believe one 9-line function and some test files). The larger part of the claim was over the
"Structure, sequence and organization" of the API. SSO is a technical term meaning, AIUI, that even though literal copying didn't take place, there was still infringement because the new code was deemed to be based on the old. IANAL and I can see how this could work but ISTM it's exactly the wrong sort of test for an API in particular, because an API by its nature is always going to have the same SSO whatever the implementation.
If an API can be copyrighted in this way it effectively locks out other implementations of the language, hence in the earlier judgement talk of
Quote:
|
...the danger of conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be conferred only by patent.
|