4 ms·

OK, so if Paramount loses (as I would expect), does this then mean that the lawsuit between Oracle and Google around speaking the language 'Java' gets an intere

by plank 10y ago

OK, so if Paramount loses (as I would expect), does this then mean that the lawsuit between Oracle and Google around speaking the language 'Java' gets an interesting precedent?

brianwawok 10y ago
I am not sure APIs being subject to copyright and pretend languages being subject to copyright are really the same argument?
- saizai 10y ago
  It's actually pretty related. Expect some articles in the near future that address this exact issue. (I can't in this context, since LCS can't take position on API issues, and I won't scoop our press contacts.)
andreasvc 10y ago
Isn't it a crucial feature of a precedent that it actually precedes the question to be resolved?
- Tenhundfeld 10y ago
  Or does it just require that one judgement precedes the other? Imagine two related suits filed within weeks of each other, A & B. B, the later-filed one, gets resolved quickly, for whatever reason, maybe it has a narrower focus. It seems the lawyers and judge in A, filed-earlier but still ongoing, could look to B for precedent since it is a relevant piece of settled law. IANAL, and I can see arguments on both sides of the issue, depending on the exact matter under discussion. But logically, it seems that the judgement is what matters most for precedent, not when the suit was filed or when the incidents happened. It's an interesting question though. I hope a lawyer can set us straight.
gortok 10y ago
I don't believe so, the brief covers this claim: > Thus, this case should not be confused with the recent litigation over the Java computer language. As observed by the Federal Circuit, that case “was not a situation where Oracle was selecting among preordained names and phrases to create its packages.” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) cert den’d 135 S. Ct. 2887 (U.S. 2015). Here, speakers of Klingon are limited to preordained words and syntax. (Page 12) This is called the 'doctrine of merger', I believe (IANAL): > Furthermore, the doctrine of merger provides that if an idea “can only be expressed in a limited number of ways,” those means of expression “cannot be protected, lest one author own the idea itself.” (page 9) Since Klingon words are not an exact transliteration of english words (not a 1-to-1 translation), you can't express the same ideas in multiple ways; so if the language were to be copyrightable, only the person who owns the languages could express those ideas, which seems patently silly. (My legal analysis isn't; so I'm probably off on exactly why; that's why I spent most of my time quoting from the brief).
- saizai 10y ago
  Take a look at Charles Duan's recent articles for Slate and Wired, which address this. Google his name + Klingon, Oracle, Lexmark, and/or Arista and you'll get relevant articles.
chris_wot 10y ago
I can only imagine the difficulties and challenges faced by those folks who could only ever speak in nouns. Really, really long nouns in sentences stated very indirectly.
- saizai 10y ago
  Take a look at Kēlen. It's a conlang with no verbs. Yes really. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8_9r3bwAx8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8_9r3bwAx8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%93len https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%93len http://kelen.conlang.org/ http://kelen.conlang.org/
- Vivtek 10y ago
  Don't underestimate the human capacity for circumlocution. The Hungarian language has no word for "to have". Seriously. And they do just fine without it.
  - saizai 10y ago
    Russian doesn't normally use a verb for 'to have' either. It's mainly expressed as a preposition (_u_).
saizai 10y ago
See: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/06/oracle_v_google_klingon_and_copyrighting_language.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/0... https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/in-a-lawsuit-over-copyright-in-klingon-here-come-the-klingon-speakers/ https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/in-a-lawsuit...

by plank 10y ago

OK, so if Paramount loses (as I would expect), does this then mean that the lawsuit between Oracle and Google around speaking the language 'Java' gets an interesting precedent?

brianwawok 10y ago

I am not sure APIs being subject to copyright and pretend languages being subject to copyright are really the same argument?

saizai 10y ago
It's actually pretty related. Expect some articles in the near future that address this exact issue. (I can't in this context, since LCS can't take position on API issues, and I won't scoop our press contacts.)

andreasvc 10y ago

Isn't it a crucial feature of a precedent that it actually precedes the question to be resolved?

Tenhundfeld 10y ago
Or does it just require that one judgement precedes the other? Imagine two related suits filed within weeks of each other, A & B. B, the later-filed one, gets resolved quickly, for whatever reason, maybe it has a narrower focus. It seems the lawyers and judge in A, filed-earlier but still ongoing, could look to B for precedent since it is a relevant piece of settled law. IANAL, and I can see arguments on both sides of the issue, depending on the exact matter under discussion. But logically, it seems that the judgement is what matters most for precedent, not when the suit was filed or when the incidents happened. It's an interesting question though. I hope a lawyer can set us straight.

gortok 10y ago

I don't believe so, the brief covers this claim: > Thus, this case should not be confused with the recent litigation over the Java computer language. As observed by the Federal Circuit, that case “was not a situation where Oracle was selecting among preordained names and phrases to create its packages.” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) cert den’d 135 S. Ct. 2887 (U.S. 2015). Here, speakers of Klingon are limited to preordained words and syntax. (Page 12) This is called the 'doctrine of merger', I believe (IANAL): > Furthermore, the doctrine of merger provides that if an idea “can only be expressed in a limited number of ways,” those means of expression “cannot be protected, lest one author own the idea itself.” (page 9) Since Klingon words are not an exact transliteration of english words (not a 1-to-1 translation), you can't express the same ideas in multiple ways; so if the language were to be copyrightable, only the person who owns the languages could express those ideas, which seems patently silly. (My legal analysis isn't; so I'm probably off on exactly why; that's why I spent most of my time quoting from the brief).

saizai 10y ago
Take a look at Charles Duan's recent articles for Slate and Wired, which address this. Google his name + Klingon, Oracle, Lexmark, and/or Arista and you'll get relevant articles.

chris_wot 10y ago

I can only imagine the difficulties and challenges faced by those folks who could only ever speak in nouns. Really, really long nouns in sentences stated very indirectly.

saizai 10y ago
Take a look at Kēlen. It's a conlang with no verbs. Yes really. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8_9r3bwAx8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8_9r3bwAx8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%93len https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%93len http://kelen.conlang.org/ http://kelen.conlang.org/
Vivtek 10y ago
Don't underestimate the human capacity for circumlocution. The Hungarian language has no word for "to have". Seriously. And they do just fine without it.
- saizai 10y ago
  Russian doesn't normally use a verb for 'to have' either. It's mainly expressed as a preposition (_u_).

saizai 10y ago

See: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/06/oracle_v_google_klingon_and_copyrighting_language.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/0... https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/in-a-lawsuit-over-copyright-in-klingon-here-come-the-klingon-speakers/ https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/in-a-lawsuit...