Oracle vs. Google

Ars: Prvi del sojenja je za nami in odločite porote bo znana kmalu.

Porota odloča o tem:

-Ali je Google kršil avtorske pravice podjetja Oracle s uporabo, oziroma izdelavo lastnih Javanskih programskih vmesnikov.
-Ali se naj uporaba avtorsko zaščitenih Javanskih programskih vmesnikov v tem primeru smatra kot "fair use".
-Ali se majhna količina kopirane kode v Android smatra za pomembno, oziroma pravno relevantno ali "de minimis".

P.S. Po končanem prvem delu sojenja o kršenju avtorskih pravic bo sledilo še sojenje o domnevnem kršenju patentov.

Programski vmesniki so v bistvu ključno vprašanje tega prvega dela odločanja. Se pravi tudi v širšem pomenu in ne le v tožbi Oracle vs. Google.

Oooooh, Android v Banovce FTW!

Niti ne, gre se potem bolj za to, kako se bo razporejal denar, ki ga prinaša Android in ne toliko, da bi koga pretirano motil Android.

Torej, medtem, ko se sodnik odloča ali programski vmesniki so predmet avtorskih pravic, katere so določili porotniki, da Google v primeru Java je kršil, ampak se pa niso mogli poenotiti o tem, če je pri tem šlo za "fair use", se nadaljuje drugi del sojenja, glede patentov. Tukaj kakšnega sklicevanja na "fair use" ni, ali kršitev je ali je pa ni. Odloča se o kršenju dveh patentov:

-US Patents No. 6,061,520
-RE38,104

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor...

It's rather done.

Sodnik William Alsup ni ugodil zahtevku podjetja Oracle in je spoznal, da Javanski programski vmesniki niso predmet avtorskih pravic, torej kršitve avtorskih pravic na tem področju s strani podjetja Google ni.

So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality -- even when the implementation is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.

Groklaw

Prve izjave podjetje Google:

The court's decision upholds the principle that open and interoperable computer languages form an essential basis for software development. It's a good day for collaboration and innovation.

Prve izjave podjetje Oracle:

Oracle is committed to the protection of Java as both a valuable development platform and a valuable intellectual property asset. It will vigorously pursue an appeal of this decision in order to maintain that protection and to continue to support the broader Java community of over 9 million developers and countless law abiding enterprises. Google's implementation of the accused APIs is not a free pass, since a license has always been required for an implementation of the Java Specification. And the court's reliance on "interoperability" ignores the undisputed fact that Google deliberately eliminated interoperability between Android and all other Java platforms. Google's implementation intentionally fragmented Java and broke the "write once, run anywhere" promise. This ruling, if permitted to stand, would undermine the protection for innovation and invention in the United States and make it far more difficult to defend intellectual property rights against companies anywhere in the world that simply takes them as their own.

TheVerge