Tekijänoikeuden erikoiskirjasto

Answering Question One in Google v Oracle : The Creativity of Computer Programmes
Muistilista on tyhjä
Vis
Hylly
  • SA-Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA
Henkilönnimi
  • Clifford, Ralph D., kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö
  • Answering Question One in Google v Oracle : The Creativity of Computer Programmes
Julkaistu
  • Copyright Society, New York : 2023.
Ulkoasutiedot
  • s. 127-158
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa
  • Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., ISSN 0886-3520 ; 70(1)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms.
  • There is a misconception that computer programs are extremely limited by set expressions required by the computer system or the problem being coded and thus have little room for creativity. Under this fallacy, some argue that copyright protection for software is practically nonexistent as the Feist minimal creativity standard cannot be met. Others, including Google in the recent Google v. Oracle case before the Supreme Court, argue that even if the minimum creativity standard can be met, most aspects of software constitute ideas rather than expressions so, again, copyright protection fails under the merger doctrine. Until recently, these factual assertions about the nature of computer programs and their creation have not been empirically tested. The authors have now done so. In a recently published, peer-reviewed study by the authors, the creativity leading to the writing of a computer program was established; indeed, the creativity used by a computer programmer is similar to that found in other disciplines that are acknowledged to be creative. The study took examples of computer programs written by multiple programmers to perform identical functions and applied recognized psychology-based tests to measure creativity. Although the study’s programs were not particularly complex, the programmers found many significantly different and creative ways to code them. The study established that software—at least that more complicated than the program needed to print “Hello, world!”—vary greatly based on the creative expressions chosen by the program’s author. This creative expression deserves full copyright protection.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Henkilönnimi
  • Khatib, Firas, kirjoittaja.
  • Kershaw, Trina C., kirjoittaja.
  • El-Nasan, Adnan, kirjoittaja.
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke
  • Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., 0886-3520 ; 70(1)
*000      ab a        ar
*00124127
*008      s2023    xxu    e     |||| 0|eng |            
*040  $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*1001 $aClifford, Ralph D.,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aAnswering Question One in Google v Oracle :$bThe Creativity of Computer Programmes /$cRalph D. Clifford, Firas Khatib, Trina C. Kershaw, Adnan El-Nasan.
*264 1$aNew York :$bCopyright Society,$c2023.
*300  $as. 127-158
*336  $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337  $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338  $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aJournal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A.,$x0886-3520 ;$v70(1)
*520  $aThere is a misconception that computer programs are extremely limited by set expressions required by the computer system or the problem being coded and thus have little room for creativity. Under this fallacy, some argue that copyright protection for software is practically nonexistent as the Feist minimal creativity standard cannot be met. Others, including Google in the recent Google v. Oracle case before the Supreme Court, argue that even if the minimum creativity standard can be met, most aspects of software constitute ideas rather than expressions so, again, copyright protection fails under the merger doctrine. Until recently, these factual assertions about the nature of computer programs and their creation have not been empirically tested. The authors have now done so. In a recently published, peer-reviewed study by the authors, the creativity leading to the writing of a computer program was established; indeed, the creativity used by a computer programmer is similar to that found in other disciplines that are acknowledged to be creative. The study took examples of computer programs written by multiple programmers to perform identical functions and applied recognized psychology-based tests to measure creativity. Although the study’s programs were not particularly complex, the programmers found many significantly different and creative ways to code them. The study established that software—at least that more complicated than the program needed to print “Hello, world!”—vary greatly based on the creative expressions chosen by the program’s author. This creative expression deserves full copyright protection.
*650 7$atietokoneohjelmat$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p26592$2yso/fin
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$aluovuus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p8311$2yso/fin
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*651 7$aYhdysvallat$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105078
*7001 $aKhatib, Firas,$ekirjoittaja.
*7001 $aKershaw, Trina C.,$ekirjoittaja.
*7001 $aEl-Nasan, Adnan,$ekirjoittaja.
*830 0$aJournal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A.,$x0886-3520 ;$v70(1)
*852  $hSA-Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.
Vis
Lähetä
Niteen tunnusTilaEräpäiväKuuluuSijaintiHylly
Ex1Saatavana (ei lainattavissa) KirjastoKirjasto SA-Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA