On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 01:05:09PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > As far as I understand the ruling the higher court just didn't like > that the lower court just said the API as a whole wasn't copyrightable. > They would have liked the lower court to say that the APIs as published > was declared copyrightable. Then there are several defenses to declare > when a similar work that might look like it is a copy still isn't > infringing use. Specifically the court says that there should be a > ruling about fair use instead. Which might just work out fine since > the original jury in the case was very close to just declaring the > specific case as fair use: > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/oracle-v-google-jury-foreman-reveals-oracle-wasnt-even-close/ Bradley Kuhn did a deeper and more nuanced analysis of the case for people who are interested: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/05/10/oracle-google.html Cheers, Mark
