On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:26 AM, thufir <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14-10-17 03:52 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> >> you would no longer be permitted to utilise or work on the Firefox >> Web Browser, because it has implemented a near-identical copy of the >> Microsoft COM protocol named XPCOM (badly, it has to be said. > > > That's not at all what the appeals court wrote.
it may not explicitly be what was written, but what was explicitly written is irrelevant. it's what's *implied* by what is written that is important. and, from what i gather everyone is saying, the crux of the matter is that APIs are to become copyrightable material. due to the concept of case-law [precedent] i don't believe that the judge may permit *only* 37 APIs to become copyrighted without also setting a huge precedent of allowing *other people* to then quote the exact same arguments and use this case as a reference. i believe this is what case law is all about? does that make it clear that this *REALLY IS* about copyrighting *ALL* APIs? > However, to allow the SSO apologies i have no idea what an "S S O" is - it's not a common computing term that i've ever encountered in the past 38 years of working with computers. would you mind providing a reference to this acronym? l.
