|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
Re^5: Copyright on languagesby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on May 03, 2012 at 20:07 UTC||Need Help??|
This issue will no doubt be revisited at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings we cannot say that the district court clearly erred.
A tentative conclusion drawn during a pre-trial motion, that a decision made by a previous court may have erred, does not place that tentative conclusion "in fact".
And there you have it.
And there, you have nothing. Even if your reading of this:
The API is part of the structure, sequence and organization and user interface and therefore is potentially copyrightable.
is exactly correct, (which is obviously still open for legal debate),
there is a substantial difference between: "user interface and therefore is potentially copyrightable."
And: APIs are in fact copyrightable.
And you do not need to be a lawyer to see it.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.