4 ms·
Yes, and the normal way you do this is by having some people (who can be tainted) write a bunch of documentation. Then the documentation gets passed to the peop
by kybernetikos 9y ago
Yes, and the normal way you do this is by having some people (who can be tainted) write a bunch of documentation. Then the documentation gets passed to the people working in the 'clean room' who then implement based on that documentation.
The problem I'm describing is that in this case the kind of thing you'd typically want to write in that documentation is exactly the signatures of methods, which would amount to copying the copyrighted material and would taint the whole clean room. I'm trying to think of a way you could even do clean room engineering if the signatures of methods are copyright information. The reimplement from usage examples is the only thing I can come up with.
- bonesss 9y agoNot a lawyer, and I agree with your overall point, but I think usage examples are as tainted as the raw API.If the API is copyrighted with no fair use exemption for interop, why would that protection not extend to the API usage which contain the same information? "void IFoo.bar()" and "myFoo.bar() // returns void" are pretty similar and equally as "infringing" IMO. These $9 Billion dollars will look great on Oracles bottom line. The mega-billions in possible lost trade and efficiency make me think this ruling gets reversed with a vengeance.