Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Java Oracle The Courts

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Clings To Java API Copyrights

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Unix (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31, 2013 @04:30PM (#43326679)

    While I agree with the ruling, Oracle didn't sue for control of Android.

    No, their motive was simply the same as every lawyer in the copyright business: "All your moneys are belong to us".

Breadth-first search is the bulldozer of science. -- Randy Goebel

Working...