Content deleted Content added
condensed info now in main article |
update on Google case |
||
Line 80:
The judge asked both Google and Oracle to provide further detail of their positions over whether an API or programming language, such as Java, can be copyrighted.
He also asked for both sides to comment on a ruling by the [[European Court of Justice]] in a similar case that found "Neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection."{{sfn|King|Farber|2012}}
On 31 May 2012 the judge ruled that "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API."{{sfn|Mullin|2012}}
==References==
Line 142 ⟶ 143:
|date=May 3 2012 |year=2012
|accessdate=2012-05-30}}
*{{cite web |ref=harv |url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/google-wins-crucial-api-ruling-oracles-case-decimated/
|work=ars technica
|title=Google wins crucial API ruling, Oracle's case decimated
|first=Joe |last=Mullin
|date=May 31 2012 |year=2012
|accessdate=2012-05-31}}
*{{cite web |ref=harv
|url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/litigationresourcecenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2012/05/07/jury-says-google-infringed-but-it-can-t-agree-on-fair-use.aspx
| |||