000042067 000__ 01350cam\a22002535i\4500
000042067 001__ 42067
000042067 003__ SzGeWIPO
000042067 005__ 20240708145858.0
000042067 008__ 200625s2017\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000042067 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda
000042067 041__ $$aeng
000042067 1001_ $$aGordon, Wendy J.
000042067 24503 $$aHow the Oracle Erred$$bThe 'Use/Explanation Distinction' and the Future of Computer Copyright
000042067 264_1 $$a[Cambridge, United Kingdom] :$$bCambridge University Press,$$c2017.
000042067 300__ $$a55 pages
000042067 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000042067 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia
000042067 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier
000042067 520__ $$aThis article was written prior to the victory for the ORACLE v GOOGLE defendant based on "fair use". That result does not change the relevance of the earlier copyright decisions of the ORACLE court, which are the topic of my article. Moreover, the late resolution of the copyright claim underlines one of the article's main points, namely, that early dismissal of over-reaching claims of computer copyright infringement is preferable to resolution on the basis of doctrines such as "fair use" which are typically resolved far later in the game.
000042067 525__ $$aPublished in : Copyright in an Age of Limitations and Exceptions, Ruth Okediji, Ed., Cambridge University Press (2017)
000042067 650_0 $$aMethod of operation
000042067 650_0 $$acopyright$$xComputer programs
000042067 650_0 $$aInteroperability
000042067 650_0 $$aCopyrightability
000042067 650_0 $$aAPI
000042067 650_0 $$aOracle v. Google
000042067 85641 $$uhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2937892$$yView this resource
000042067 904__ $$aJournal article
000042067 980__ $$aBIB