[josephlord]

I'm not even sure about that one. Oracle are a bad guy (always) but I'm not sure Google weren't one too in that particular case. If you replay the situation in your head imagining MS in the Google role and Sun in the Oracle role would you have felt the same way?

I think the conclusion that API's are not copyrightable is pretty much preposterous from my understanding of copyright law. A decision that there was a 'fair use' right to copy API's for compatibility purposes would have been an interesting and probably valuable development although I'm not sure Dalvik would have applied here.

Groklaw's example API to explain what API's (adding numbers I think) was also applied when considering whether there was creativity in expression and correctly the conclusion was that there isn't in the case of adding but then Groklaw inappropriately extrapolated this view to all API's.

The court reporting could be useful though you are right. Florian Mueller (http://www.fosspatents.com/) attends some of the German ones and I find his reporting on the patent cases very good. Groklaw seemed to have taken the view that you couldn't believe a word he said but I never quite understood why (although it might have been the Oracle v. Google case as he didn't see it the Groklaw way and had at some point consulted for Oracle).