On 14-10-17 08:52 AM, lkcl . wrote:
the reverse-engineering was at several different levels:
I think your missing a key point, which is that you reverse-engineered,
which is exactly exempt:
'Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act> (17
U.S.C. § 1201 (f)
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html>)
says that a person who is in legal possession of a program, is permitted
to reverse-engineer and circumvent its protection if this is necessary
in order to achieve "interoperability"...'
-wikipedia
never occured. Granted, Harmony was an attempt at reverse engineering,
but Dalvik is more than just Harmony. Google has never disputed that
they copied, in fact it never came up.
Google didn't reverse engineer. While I appreciate your point, it's not
directly relevant -- the analogy doesn't hold. Nowhere in its legal
filings did Google even claim to have reverse engineered anything. Also
from the appeals court:
"Oral Argument at 31:31. Counsel did not identify any programs that use
only the 37 API packages at issue, however, and did not attest that any
such program would be useful. Nor did Google cite to any record evidence
to support this claim."
and, most damning:
'As the former Register of Copyrights of the United States pointed out
in his brief amicus curiae, “[h]ad Google reverse engineered the
programming packages to figure out the ideas and functionality of the
original, and then created its own structure and its own literal code,
Oracle would have no remedy under copyright whatsoever.”'
No, I've gotta say that, based on what I've read, this has absolutely
nothing to do with reverse engineering; your analogy doesn't apply.
Thufir
