Hallo, Lawrence Rosen, den ich wegen der Lizenz seiner Ausführungen nennen darf und muss, hat folgendes hierzu geschrieben:
"<Licensed under CC-BY.> About a year ago I was on a panel to help explain to developers the effect of the CAFC opinion on software APIs. One of my co-panelists was a lead outside counsel for Oracle, who had just seen the court uphold her oral argument that what Google copied was Oracle's copyrighted API. She held up to the audience an art deco brass lamp, about eighteen inches high, set in the figure of a Roman-garbed woman, carved with a rim around its head for a shade and holding a place for a light bulb at the top. The figurine was set on a heavy brass base that also anchored a light switch and a long electrical cord. That was Oracle's example of an API: That lamp was, in her words, an artistic copyrighted work that also created light. That, she said, was like Java! No wonder, with such arguments before it, that the CAFC was confused about APIs. An old, ornate figurine in brass from an artistic period we no longer allow in our homes became itself a representation of an "application programming interface" that deserved copyright protection. There was no Google attorney speaking to that audience to call this Oracle argument nonsense, although Prof. Pamela Samuelson from Berkeley tried valiantly to distinguish copyright law from that Oracle attorney's opinion. I responded to the audience that the "API portion" of that ugly brass lamp was not the figurine in a classic pose. That figurine part - for whatever it is worth - is copyrightable and cannot be copied without permission. The light bulb socket, however, and the on-off switch, and the AC power cord at the bottom - those were manufactured objects subject to an API. Oracle and the figurine's creator could no more claim those a copyrightable work than could Faraday claim electricity or Edison claim all electric lights made with a screw-like metal connector at the bottom. There is still no court decision that explains what an API is. This does not mean that any knowledgeable attorney you hire won't help you decide whether copying something that someone calls an "API" is worth the risk. Lamp sockets and electrical cords defined in a specification can't be copyrighted so as to prevent their implementation no matter what label is placed on them. I am always willing to grab from private ownership any claims to intellectual works that cannot be owned. /Larry Rosen" Hierzu gab es dann noch folgende ergänzende Information, deren Übermittler ich nach der Chatham House Rule nicht nennen darf, die jedoch erhellend ist: 'For a non-US list participants, the example given in the presentation is straight from the Mazer v Stein case from our US Supreme Court, where the court held that a "useful object" (a lamp) normally protectable only by patent, nonetheless also could be protected by copyright, for its expressive features: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazer_v._Stein ' In Deutschland kennen wir übrigens auch Geschmacksmuster: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eingetragenes_Design Gruß Michael
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ fsfe-de mailing list fsfe-de@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-de