Yah, but again, layman audience, and def not the weirdest question in this trial. https://twitter.com/BlueSpaceCanary/status/731193434309054464 …
https://books.google.com/books?id=LFlGbaS8VjYC&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=American+Committee+for+Interoperable+Systems&source=bl&ots=Tq4lVpFxuc&sig=uVTAfLboSdQER1L_gybtnm9L6gA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT7O3yodjMAhVE0GMKHYD-AWc4ChDoAQggMAE#v=onepage&q=American%20Committee%20for%20Interoperable%20Systems&f=false … "other US firms, such as Sun Microsystems ... deny protection to internal interfaces"
-
-
"because it was necessary to gain access to the unprotected underlying ideas and functional concepts"
-
it's hard to find any case before O v. G where anyone involved thought interfaces needed for interop copyrightable
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
From http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2003/2.html#Heading79 … it's clear that nobody thought interfaces were copyrightable, just incidentals
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.