Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Apr 2012 09:40 UTC
Legal "Oracle's case against Google has evolved primarily into a copyright infringement suit over the past several months, and with the full trial scheduled to begin this coming Monday, the court is making an effort to get down to the nuts and bolts of copyright law. The judge issued an order last week requiring that both Google and Oracle provide their respective positions on a fundamental issue in the case: 'Each side shall take a firm yes or no position on whether computer programming languages are copyrightable'." Seems like an easy enough answer to me, especially since Oracle's example doesn't hold up at all - Oracle points to Klingon's custom glyphs to illustrate that a language can fall under copyright, but unlike Klingon, a programming language uses standard glyphs we all use every day. Arguing you can copyright that is borderline psychotic, and opens up a whole can of worms.
Permalink for comment 514043
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by acobar on Fri 13th Apr 2012 12:33 UTC
Member since:

Should the argument of Oracle be considered valid they would very much be on hot waters as everyone else. There is a long string of "prior art" on computer language development way back to FORmula TRANslator and back again to standardization of commerce/production practices.

This is so ridiculous. That is what we get when lawyers take on subjects they don't understand on its fully. Back off!

Reply Score: 4