5 ms·

As background, this opinion piece by the lawyer in question may be useful in understanding the mindset of the players. Hurst argues that because API's are not

by nkurz 10y ago

As background, this opinion piece by the lawyer in question may be useful in understanding the mindset of the players. Hurst argues that because API's are not copyrightable, the GPL is dead and Oracle's valiant attempts to defend free software have been foiled: The Death of "Free" Software . . . or How Google Killed GPL by Annette Hurst (@divaesq) The developer community may be celebrating today what it perceives as a victory in Oracle v. Google. Google won a verdict that an unauthorized, commercial, competitive, harmful use of software in billions of products is fair use. No copyright expert would have ever predicted such a use would be considered fair. Before celebrating, developers should take a closer look. Not only will creators everywhere suffer from this decision if it remains intact, but the free software movement itself now faces substantial jeopardy. ... https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-google-killed-gpl-annette-hurst https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-googl... This wasn't an accidental "slip" by a poorly trained intern. This was a conscious disclosure made by one of Oracle's lead attorneys. She is one of the top IP lawyers in the nation: https://www.orrick.com/People/2/6/2/Annette-Hurst https://www.orrick.com/People/2/6/2/Annette-Hurst. It is in keeping with the "scorched earth" strategy that has been followed for this case. She knew what she was doing, and she (and her firm) should pay the consequences. If there are no consequences, it will legitimize and reward this strategy.

macmac 10y ago
If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer. In fact many "copyright experts" predicted the outcome. And it does nothing to threaten copyright in software. All it does is allow for reimplementation of the API.
- nkurz 10y ago
  If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer. No. Regardless of what she actually believes, she is one of the most highly accomplished and sought after IP lawyers in the nation, and a partner and a director at one of the top IP firms in the nations. She may be wrong, she may be even be evil, but she is not incompetent. It is more likely that you and she have different goals. If your logic leads you to conclude that she is incompetent, your logic is simply wrong.
  - waqf 10y ago
    OP isn't implying she is incompetent. OP is implying she may not really believe what she wrote.
    - nkurz 10y ago
      I understand. I'm arguing against the original poster's logic, not their conclusion. As I understand it, the argument is that any IP lawyer who believes what is written in that op-ed could not possibly be competent. I'm asserting that this is false, and that the world is full of competent and successful people who believe things that others find to be incomprehensible, and that their beliefs are not evidence that are incompetent. I don't don't know whether Hurst is a true-believer in this case. I do know that there are many smart and talented people who have convinced themselves of things that seem absurd from the outside. Some humans have an amazing ability to align their beliefs with their self-interests. Even in the face of beliefs that can scientifically be proven to be false, this often has surprisingly little negative effect on their competence in their field.
      - macmac 10y ago
        I think this comes down to the definition of competent. I was using using the word in the - perhaps loose - sense, of being able to perform a correct legal analysis of the implications of the outcome of the case. For many purposes your definition is certainly valid, and clearly better explains that she will clearly not be out of a job just because she published what I maintain is a completely invalid analysis.
  - sgnelson 10y ago
    "she is one of the most highly accomplished and sought after IP lawyers in the nation." Success does not necessarily imply intelligence.
raverbashing 10y ago
Does her fee from Oracle includes "opinion"/PR pieces like that?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure that it was written as part of the legal effort on the case, yes. They're trying to try the case in the press, not just in the courts. I believe that much more than I believe that a highly-paid and very busy lawyer believed so strongly about the issue that she took some of her scarce personal time to write an editorial that just happened to line up with the position of her client in the case she's litigating.
lucio 10y ago
First comment in that article: (from Michael Tiemann, VP Open Source Affairs, Red Hat) As a person who started the world's first company based on supporting, developing, and maintaining GPL-licensed software (Cygnus Support, 1989), and now a VP at Red Hat, I respectfully submit that you don't really understand the GPL, APIs, nor the fundamental premise of Open Source Software (both as a legal construct and as a short-hand for the business models that it enables). To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, "Your arguments are not right. They are not even wrong."
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jhanschoo 10y ago
This post is FUD. Her argument contends that the trial determined that because the Java APIs were open, they can be used anywhere and be considered fair use. Therefore code licensed under GPL can be used anywhere and be considered fair use. A lawyer that has practiced in IP has commented with a rebuttal: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-google-killed-gpl-annette-hurst#pulse-comments-comment-urn:li:comment:(article:7724334518473792075,6142047730253512704) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-googl... ... (1) the jury's verdict concerns the APIs, not the software itself. The APIs should never have been subject to copyrightability, IMHO (see http://epiclaw.net/sean-hogle-articles/oracle-v-google http://epiclaw.net/sean-hogle-articles/oracle-v-google), but setting that aside, your assertion that the jury somehow killed software licensing or open source licensing is baseless. Only the APIs, i.e. the labels and classification methods, were at issue in the trial, not the code implementing those APIs. (2) "Google is an advertising company": I've seen this comment before, and it's an obvious back-handed slam at Google. Google is a technology company whose business model relies on advertising. Google has not only contributed more to the advancement of humanity with its innovations than most companies ever have, but it has also been a force for good in reinvigorating fair use in the digital age. (3) "You can kiss GPL goodbye". Google has adopted the OpenJDK Java implementation licensed under GPL. Android is GPL-based. ...

by nkurz 10y ago

macmac 10y ago

If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer. In fact many "copyright experts" predicted the outcome. And it does nothing to threaten copyright in software. All it does is allow for reimplementation of the API.

nkurz 10y ago
If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer. No. Regardless of what she actually believes, she is one of the most highly accomplished and sought after IP lawyers in the nation, and a partner and a director at one of the top IP firms in the nations. She may be wrong, she may be even be evil, but she is not incompetent. It is more likely that you and she have different goals. If your logic leads you to conclude that she is incompetent, your logic is simply wrong.
- waqf 10y ago
  OP isn't implying she is incompetent. OP is implying she may not really believe what she wrote.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    I understand. I'm arguing against the original poster's logic, not their conclusion. As I understand it, the argument is that any IP lawyer who believes what is written in that op-ed could not possibly be competent. I'm asserting that this is false, and that the world is full of competent and successful people who believe things that others find to be incomprehensible, and that their beliefs are not evidence that are incompetent. I don't don't know whether Hurst is a true-believer in this case. I do know that there are many smart and talented people who have convinced themselves of things that seem absurd from the outside. Some humans have an amazing ability to align their beliefs with their self-interests. Even in the face of beliefs that can scientifically be proven to be false, this often has surprisingly little negative effect on their competence in their field.
    - macmac 10y ago
      I think this comes down to the definition of competent. I was using using the word in the - perhaps loose - sense, of being able to perform a correct legal analysis of the implications of the outcome of the case. For many purposes your definition is certainly valid, and clearly better explains that she will clearly not be out of a job just because she published what I maintain is a completely invalid analysis.
- sgnelson 10y ago
  "she is one of the most highly accomplished and sought after IP lawyers in the nation." Success does not necessarily imply intelligence.

raverbashing 10y ago

Does her fee from Oracle includes "opinion"/PR pieces like that?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I'm pretty sure that it was written as part of the legal effort on the case, yes. They're trying to try the case in the press, not just in the courts. I believe that much more than I believe that a highly-paid and very busy lawyer believed so strongly about the issue that she took some of her scarce personal time to write an editorial that just happened to line up with the position of her client in the case she's litigating.

lucio 10y ago

First comment in that article: (from Michael Tiemann, VP Open Source Affairs, Red Hat) As a person who started the world's first company based on supporting, developing, and maintaining GPL-licensed software (Cygnus Support, 1989), and now a VP at Red Hat, I respectfully submit that you don't really understand the GPL, APIs, nor the fundamental premise of Open Source Software (both as a legal construct and as a short-hand for the business models that it enables). To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, "Your arguments are not right. They are not even wrong."

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jhanschoo 10y ago

This post is FUD. Her argument contends that the trial determined that because the Java APIs were open, they can be used anywhere and be considered fair use. Therefore code licensed under GPL can be used anywhere and be considered fair use. A lawyer that has practiced in IP has commented with a rebuttal: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-google-killed-gpl-annette-hurst#pulse-comments-comment-urn:li:comment:(article:7724334518473792075,6142047730253512704) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-googl... ... (1) the jury's verdict concerns the APIs, not the software itself. The APIs should never have been subject to copyrightability, IMHO (see http://epiclaw.net/sean-hogle-articles/oracle-v-google http://epiclaw.net/sean-hogle-articles/oracle-v-google), but setting that aside, your assertion that the jury somehow killed software licensing or open source licensing is baseless. Only the APIs, i.e. the labels and classification methods, were at issue in the trial, not the code implementing those APIs. (2) "Google is an advertising company": I've seen this comment before, and it's an obvious back-handed slam at Google. Google is a technology company whose business model relies on advertising. Google has not only contributed more to the advancement of humanity with its innovations than most companies ever have, but it has also been a force for good in reinvigorating fair use in the digital age. (3) "You can kiss GPL goodbye". Google has adopted the OpenJDK Java implementation licensed under GPL. Android is GPL-based. ...