The judgement goes like: "The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability....
Contrary to Oracle, copyright law does not confer ownership over any and all ways to implement a function or specification, no matter how creative the copyrighted implementation or specification may be. The Act confers ownership only over the specific way in which the author wrote out his version. Others are free to write their own implementation to accomplish the identical function, for, importantly, ideas, concepts and functions cannot be monopolized by copyright" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275 \quote https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/TZsT2BP3TDh ______________________________ Linus Torvalds May 24, 2012 - Public Prediction: instead of Oracle coming out and admitting they were morons about their idiotic suit against Android, they'll come out posturing and talk about how they'll be vindicated, and pay lawyers to take it to the next level of idiocy. Sometimes I really wish I wasn't always right. It's a curse, I tell you. _________________________________ \unquote Best A. Mani -- A. Mani CU, ASL, CLC, AMS, CMS http://www.logicamani.co.cc _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
