Help to understand?
All this is really out of my field of expertise and I'd appreciate an analogy to understand what the case is about. The way that @Enviable one describes it could still breach copyright in the following manner:
I write a story who's purpose is to entertain with tales of, say, young SW developers who get the better of their evil PM overlords. I deliver the story using a paper book - the widget.
Someone invents a different widget which can also deliver tales but it does so via a screen on a battery-driven plastic widget. They take my entertaining story of SW developers who get the better of their evil PM overlords, put it in their widget and sell it but seem to claim that they've not infringed my copyright because their widget is clearly different from my widget.
I'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm just trying to understand the case 'cos I don't do any tech work with APIs. I guess I'm struggling to understand the difference between what, in the Google/Oracle case, constitutes:
- framework (you can't copyright the individual words in the dictionary nor the rules of grammar and syntax that surround them),
- content (the words from the dictionary in the order that I wrote them),
- the way the content is delivered (book, kindle, podcast) .
Anyone feel up to a short explanation, or is that what the court case is all about?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
