Follow

"The ruling puts the 's interpretation of on the side of the movement's position that ... definitions should not be restricted by licenses." -Mishi Choudhary

📰READ:
zdnet.com/article/what-googles

· · Web · 1 · 2 · 0

@sflc It's interesting... They didn't use the merger doctrine, but repeated a lot of the logic they would have used for the merger doctrine. I really wish they could have just given us the bright line...

@DanHakimi @sflc For those of us not as well-versed in US copyright law:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%…

> Some ideas can be expressed intelligibly only in one or a limited number of ways. The rules of a game provide an example. In such cases the expression merges with the idea and is therefore not protected.

@DanHakimi Yes, it would have been nice if they had come out and said that the facts of an API were up for grabs, but now they seem to be saying that interoperability is not enough, it needs to be interoperability for some transformative use?

@clacke And that's actually one of the sillier parts of the opinion. Moving from desktop to mobile is not the most transformative thing in the world.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "up for grabs." Google's interoperability concerns here required legal copying for merger purposes.

@DanHakimi It would have been great if you'd always be allowed to provide an interoperable API.

Instead the lower courts ruled that the interfaces of a big complex API is a protected form of expression, and the higher court didn't contradict that, as they merely said that this specific instance was fair use.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!