Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
m →Later decisions: Fixing style/layout errors |
||
Line 84:
On May 31, 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}}
In reviewing the ''[[Oracle v. Google]]'' case history, the court noted:{{blockquote|...the above summary of the development of the law reveals a trajectory in which enthusiasm for protection of "structure, sequence and organization" peaked in the 1980s, most notably in the Third Circuit’s ''Whelan'' decision. That phrase has not been re-used by the Ninth Circuit since ''Johnson Controls'' in 1989, a decision affirming preliminary injunction. Since then, the trend of the copyright decisions has been more cautious. This trend has been driven by fidelity to Section 102(b) and recognition of the danger of conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be conferred only by patent. This is not to say that infringement of the structure, sequence and organization is a dead letter. To the contrary, it is not a dead letter. It is to say that the ''Whelan'' approach has given way to the ''Computer Associates'' approach, including in our own circuit. See ''[[Sega Enters., Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.]]'', 977 F.2d 1510, 1525 (9th Cir. 1992); ''[[Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.]]'', 35 F.3d 1435, 1445 (9th Cir. 1994).{{sfn|Alsup|2012}}}}
==References==
| |||