Quote
"So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different," the judge wrote, "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 [to achieve work-alike functionality]," adding that "where there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolise that expression."
...
The full 41-page ruling makes for a riveting read. In part that is because the judge has, as he noted during in the trial, written programming code himself—and learned some of the Java language under consideration to test the claims Oracle's lawyers were making about the nature of work-alike functionality. What Oracle attempted to do, it appears, is apply principles of patents (which protect methods) to copyright (which protects specific creative instantiations).
...
The full 41-page ruling makes for a riveting read. In part that is because the judge has, as he noted during in the trial, written programming code himself—and learned some of the Java language under consideration to test the claims Oracle's lawyers were making about the nature of work-alike functionality. What Oracle attempted to do, it appears, is apply principles of patents (which protect methods) to copyright (which protects specific creative instantiations).
It is great that we are finally starting to see some people who actually have a shred of experience with programming making decisions about software. I think many of the ridiculous decisions of the courts and patent offices reflect the total lack of understanding of what they are ruling about.
Logged
(Which is by definition a finite quantity...)