Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Java

Oracle Clings To Java API Copyrights 207

Posted by samzenpus
from the hold-on-tight dept.
An anonymous reader writes in with a story about some of the ramifications of the Oracle-Google lawsuit. "You could hear a collective sigh of relief from the software developer world when Judge William Alsup issued his ruling in the Oracle-Google lawsuit. Oracle lost on pretty much every point, but the thing that must have stuck most firmly in Oracle’s throat was this: '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. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.'"

Comment: Re:Fundamentally it isn't, in reality it is (Score 1) 385

by jmauro (#43323051) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Should Bitcoin Be Regulated?

So if you owe someone in the US money, they have to accept its value in US dollars to settle the debt.

This only applies to debts owe to one of the levels of the US Government. Private parties can reject US currency for any reason, else signs like will not except dollar bills larger than $20 would be illegal.

Comment: Re:the government screwed the bank too? (Score 1) 354

by jmauro (#42522189) Attached to: AIG Contemplates Joining Stockholder Suit Against US Gov't

Sold is probably the wrong word here. The bank suffered a slow bank run and then the bank portion was seized by OTS/FDIC. That part was sold to Chase for $1.9 bil, which was a way below market price since all the non-secured assets were left with the holding company.

The rest of the company still exists and has been fighting the government ever since on taxes, the grounds for the seizure, etc.

Comment: Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score 1) 209

by jmauro (#42481451) Attached to: USPTO Asks For Input On Software Patents

I'm not a lawyer, but there would likely be case for a seizure without just compensation must be paid under the 5th Amendment. The courts consider patents to be property so invalidating all of them according to the courts would be the same as taking the patent owner's property (that they paid for via application fees and put money into defending). I don't know if they'd win, but they'd at least try to litigate on it.

There are probably other things that the Government would be sued for if they blanket invalidated existing patents, but I cannot think of any more at this time.

Stay the curse.

Working...