Исходное сообщение
"В деле Oracle против Google суд признал, что Java API не явл..." Отправлено Аноним, 01-Июн-12 10:52
Я перечитал оригинал на английском - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275 и не нашел упоминания о этом что делается общее заключение по АПИ, наоборот в самом заключении напрямую сказано: This order does not hold that Java API packages are free for all to use without license. It does not hold that the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be stolen. Rather, it holds on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act. Therefore, Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization is DISMISSED. To the extent stated herein, Google’s Rule 50 motions regarding copyrightability are GRANTED (Dkt. Nos. 984, 1007). Google’s motion for a new trial on copyright infringement is DENIED AS MOOT (Dkt. No. 1105). А также Interoperability sheds further light on the character of the command structure as a system or method of operation. Surely, millions of lines of code had been written in Java before Android arrived. These programs necessarily used the java.package.Class.method() command format. These programs called on all or some of the specific 37 packages at issue and necessarily used the command structure of names at issue. Such code was owned by the developers themselves, not by Oracle. In order for at least some of this code to run on Android, Google was required to provide the same java.package.Class.method() command system using the same names with the same “taxonomy” and with the same functional specifications. Google replicated what was necessary to achieve a degree of interoperability — but no more, taking care, as said before, to provide its own implementations И But it is nevertheless a command structure, a system or method of operation — a long hierarchy of over six thousand commands to carry out pre-assigned functions. For that reason, it cannot receive copyright protection — patent protection perhaps — but not copyright protection Так вот вопрос, откуда взялся этот вывод относительно патентования АПИ ?

Ваше сообщение
Имя*:
EMail:	Для отправки ответов на email укажите знак ! перед адресом, например, !user@host.ru (!! - не показывать email). Более тонкая настройка отправки ответов производится в профиле зарегистрированного участника форума.
Заголовок*:
Сообщение*:	> Я перечитал оригинал на английском - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275 > и не нашел упоминания о этом что делается общее заключение по > АПИ, наоборот в самом заключении напрямую сказано: > This order does not hold that Java API packages are free for > all to use without license. It does not hold that the > structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be stolen. > Rather, it holds on the specific facts of this case, the > particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use > under the Copyright Act. Therefore, Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying > of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization > is DISMISSED. To the extent stated herein, Google’s Rule 50 motions > regarding copyrightability are GRANTED (Dkt. Nos. 984, 1007). Google’s motion for > a new trial on copyright infringement is DENIED AS MOOT (Dkt. > No. 1105). > А также > Interoperability sheds further light on the character of the command structure as > a system or method of operation. Surely, millions of lines of > code had been written in Java before Android arrived. These programs > necessarily used the java.package.Class.method() command format. These programs called > on all or some of the specific 37 packages at issue > and necessarily used the command structure of names at issue. Such > code was owned by the developers themselves, not by Oracle. In > order for at least some of this code to run on > Android, Google was required to provide the same java.package.Class.method() command system > using the same names with the same “taxonomy” and with the > same functional specifications. Google replicated what was necessary to achieve a > degree of interoperability — but no more, taking care, as said > before, to provide its own implementations > И > But it is nevertheless a command structure, a system or method of > operation — a long hierarchy of over six thousand commands to > carry out pre-assigned functions. For that reason, it cannot receive copyright > protection — patent protection perhaps — but not copyright protection > Так вот вопрос, откуда взялся этот вывод относительно патентования АПИ ?
	Введите код, изображенный на картинке: