7 ms·

Oooooo shit. Isn't this phrase horrible? Don't get me wrong, I think suing over checkRange is ludicrous... but doesn't saying "declaring code isn't code" terrib

by oneloop 10y ago

Oooooo shit. Isn't this phrase horrible? Don't get me wrong, I think suing over checkRange is ludicrous... but doesn't saying "declaring code isn't code" terrible? He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words. Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE".

ricksplat 10y ago
"declaring code" means headers, or in the case of Java function specification/prototypes, right? As in "declarations". I think it's technical language twisted through legalese.
- Sharlin 10y ago
  Yep. The argument is that API specifications are not code, and reimplementing an API based on specifications is not a copyright infringement. It should not matter whether the specs are written in a natural language or a more formal one. Specs are more like ideas, and ideas cannot be copyrighted (the specification document itself could constitute a copyrighted work, though!) The problem is that to reimplement the spec in this case, you do have to copy the formal declarations verbatim. Whether or not those "sentences" are protected, and pass the threshold of originality [1], is what is at stake here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
  - reflexer 10y ago
    This is incorrect technically. Oracle has already won API copyrightability claim. http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-denies-google-appeal-on-oracle-suit-1435585873 http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-denies-google-appe... The trial now is about Google's "fair use" of those APIs.
mindcrime 10y ago
Yeah, same thought here. I understand what he meant, and pretty much everybody on HN understands it.. but to a (potentially) non-technical juror, that just does not sound good at all. I hope that one gaffe doesn't cost Google the case.
- return0 10y ago
  If the juror can't understand the distinction between declaration and implementation, then he is not fit for this particular case. Isn't it smart of him to make that point explicit?
  - dpark 10y ago
    He made the distinction extremely poorly. And jurors are not expected to be experts in anything. It's the lawyers' job to make the case to people who are not experts.
    - tempestn 10y ago
      In fact, jurors are instructed not to make use of any particular expertise they might have, and instead to rely only on testimony heard during the trial.
deciplex 10y ago
It's not that terrible: > "Declaring the title of a book is not writing a book" I think you can make a reasonable analogy there.
- Aleman360 10y ago
  Writing an outline of a book is more analogous.
  - return0 10y ago
    that would imply they plagiarized code...
  - ralfd 10y ago
    How about "table of contents"?
philh 10y ago
> Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE". This doesn't follow, sometimes language does unexpected things. E.g. a dwarf planet isn't a planet.
- tome 10y ago
  https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle
- april1stislame 10y ago
  Yes, because dwarf persons aren't persons, right?
  - rootlocus 10y ago
    Dwarf persons aren't dwarves.
  - april1stislame 10y ago
    Did I say something offensive?
- cornholio 10y ago
  Of course code declarations are "code" the same way a library listing of book titles is made up of "words". Unique, creative words that cannot be explained by chance or well known to the audience before their creation by the author. Yet, none should be protected by copyright, this is the intention of "is not code".
  - asmithmd1 10y ago
    Your example is a good one because it is established law that book titles can't be copyrighted.
    - talideon 10y ago
      But it can be trademarked. Still, I can't see anybody successfully managing to apply trademark law to APIs in general.
elthran 10y ago
> He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words Sounds like standard courtroom behavior to me
rootlocus 10y ago
Declaring code isn't executed. It's an interface. Its sole purpose is to make sure component A can communicate with component B. It's a protocol.
_pmf_ 10y ago
> He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words. The audacity of Google is astonishing. Betting your mobile business on stolen concepts and getting all third party vendors on board despite the imminent legal trouble is quite a feat. I actually hope for some fallout for Google; anything else would be a travesty.
sdenton4 10y ago
A pointer isn't the object. Don't confuse the finger with the moon.

by oneloop 10y ago

ricksplat 10y ago

"declaring code" means headers, or in the case of Java function specification/prototypes, right? As in "declarations". I think it's technical language twisted through legalese.

Sharlin 10y ago
Yep. The argument is that API specifications are not code, and reimplementing an API based on specifications is not a copyright infringement. It should not matter whether the specs are written in a natural language or a more formal one. Specs are more like ideas, and ideas cannot be copyrighted (the specification document itself could constitute a copyrighted work, though!) The problem is that to reimplement the spec in this case, you do have to copy the formal declarations verbatim. Whether or not those "sentences" are protected, and pass the threshold of originality [1], is what is at stake here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
- reflexer 10y ago
  This is incorrect technically. Oracle has already won API copyrightability claim. http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-denies-google-appeal-on-oracle-suit-1435585873 http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-denies-google-appe... The trial now is about Google's "fair use" of those APIs.

mindcrime 10y ago

Yeah, same thought here. I understand what he meant, and pretty much everybody on HN understands it.. but to a (potentially) non-technical juror, that just does not sound good at all. I hope that one gaffe doesn't cost Google the case.

return0 10y ago
If the juror can't understand the distinction between declaration and implementation, then he is not fit for this particular case. Isn't it smart of him to make that point explicit?
- dpark 10y ago
  He made the distinction extremely poorly. And jurors are not expected to be experts in anything. It's the lawyers' job to make the case to people who are not experts.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    In fact, jurors are instructed not to make use of any particular expertise they might have, and instead to rely only on testimony heard during the trial.

deciplex 10y ago

It's not that terrible: > "Declaring the title of a book is not writing a book" I think you can make a reasonable analogy there.

Aleman360 10y ago
Writing an outline of a book is more analogous.
- return0 10y ago
  that would imply they plagiarized code...
- ralfd 10y ago
  How about "table of contents"?

philh 10y ago

> Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE". This doesn't follow, sometimes language does unexpected things. E.g. a dwarf planet isn't a planet.

tome 10y ago
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle
april1stislame 10y ago
Yes, because dwarf persons aren't persons, right?
- rootlocus 10y ago
  Dwarf persons aren't dwarves.
- april1stislame 10y ago
  Did I say something offensive?
cornholio 10y ago
Of course code declarations are "code" the same way a library listing of book titles is made up of "words". Unique, creative words that cannot be explained by chance or well known to the audience before their creation by the author. Yet, none should be protected by copyright, this is the intention of "is not code".
- asmithmd1 10y ago
  Your example is a good one because it is established law that book titles can't be copyrighted.
  - talideon 10y ago
    But it can be trademarked. Still, I can't see anybody successfully managing to apply trademark law to APIs in general.

elthran 10y ago

> He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words Sounds like standard courtroom behavior to me

rootlocus 10y ago

Declaring code isn't executed. It's an interface. Its sole purpose is to make sure component A can communicate with component B. It's a protocol.

_pmf_ 10y ago

> He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words. The audacity of Google is astonishing. Betting your mobile business on stolen concepts and getting all third party vendors on board despite the imminent legal trouble is quite a feat. I actually hope for some fallout for Google; anything else would be a travesty.

sdenton4 10y ago

A pointer isn't the object. Don't confuse the finger with the moon.