[ale] Google vs. Oracle - The great android debate

[Justin Goldberg]

I thought Borland vs Lotus (123) proved that a method [of operation] cannot be copyrighted years ago. Borland/Quattro copied the menus from 123 and reverse engineered the macro system.

On Thu, 31 May 2012 10:48:25 -0400, ale-bounces at ale.org wrote:
> Those wishing to follow such machinations in excruciating detail can 
> keep consulting http://www.groklaw.net, as I have.  For me, all this is 
> now "old news."  Choose your own schedule, YMMV
> 
> Stephen R. Blevins
> stephen.r.blevins at gmail.com
> 
> On 05/31/2012 08:59 AM, Rich Faulkner wrote:
> > The new issue of LXF is out and features an interesting read on the
> > court case of Google vs. Oracle. Looks like Google has traction on their
> > assertion that the nine lines of code that were used (considered by
> > Oracle to be of no financial value) are not enough to constitute a
> > violation of licensing or copyright. Most interestingly it is being
> > revealed that a "process" or "method" cannot be copyrighted. In other
> > words, if you observe the function of a system (and reproduce that
> > functionality in your own right); that this is not a copyright
> > infringement.
> >
> > There is more to go in this case but so far it is looking promising for
> > Android and Google.
> >
> > RinL
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> > See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo