4 ms·
Effort for effort is eye for an eye fallacy. The OP seems to make some mistakes of fact. The decision was not Alsup's, but the jury's finding of fact: Google's
by jsprogrammer 10y ago
Effort for effort is eye for an eye fallacy.
The OP seems to make some mistakes of fact. The decision was not Alsup's, but the jury's finding of fact: Google's use is fair even if API's are copyrightable (Alsup believed they weren't).
For the quote you don't understand, I believe the mistake is only in a single character, 'is' should be 'in' (to which I present Larry Ellison as the central counter-example).
- grellas 10y agoThanks, I corrected the typo. As to the first round that occurred 4 years ago, the decision was Judge Alsup's. Here is my analysis of that decision at that time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#up_4051761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#up_4051761 Of course, in the verdict that just came down, the decision was that of the jury's and, yes, Google's use is fair even if API's are copyrightable - that is what fair use means.