note
BrowserUk
<blockquote><i>
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.
</i></blockquote>
<p>A tentative conclusion drawn during a pre-trial motion, that a decision made by a previous court <b>may have erred</b>, does not place that tentative conclusion "in fact".
<blockquote><i>
And there you have it.
</i></blockquote>
<p>And there, you have nothing. Even if your reading of this:
<blockquote><i>
The API is part of the structure, sequence and organization and user interface and therefore is potentially copyrightable.
</i></blockquote>
<p>is exactly correct, (which is obviously still open for legal debate),
<P>there is a substantial difference between: <i>"user interface and therefore is potentially copyrightable."</i>
<p>And: <i>APIs are in fact copyrightable.</i>
<P>And you do not need to be a lawyer to see it.
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-171588">
<hr />
<font size=1 >
<div>With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'</div>
<div>Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.</div>
<div>"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". </div>
<div>In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
<p align=right>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/29/sas_versus_world_programming/|The start of some sanity?]</p></div>
</font>
</div></div>
968490
968790