The judgement goes like:
"The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is
also a precise command structure ? a utilitarian and functional set of
symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command
structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of
the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication
of the command structure is necessary for interoperability....
Contrary to Oracle, copyright law does not confer ownership over any
and all ways to implement a function or specification, no matter how
creative the copyrighted implementation or specification may be. The
Act confers ownership only over the specific way in which the author
wrote out his version. Others are free to write their own
implementation to accomplish the identical function, for, importantly,
ideas, concepts and functions cannot be monopolized by copyright"
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275
\quote
https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/TZsT2BP3TDh
______________________________
Linus Torvalds
May 24, 2012 - Public
Prediction: instead of Oracle coming out and admitting they were
morons about their idiotic suit against Android, they'll come out
posturing and talk about how they'll be vindicated, and pay lawyers to
take it to the next level of idiocy.
Sometimes I really wish I wasn't always right. It's a curse, I tell you.
_________________________________
\unquote
Best
A. Mani
--
A. Mani
CU, ASL, CLC,? AMS, CMS
http://www.logicamani.co.cc