3 ms·
The 1% that's different being... what? Bugs? Like I said, any differences in Google's version of the API would, by definition, be interoperability problems that
by Ajedi32 9y ago
The 1% that's different being... what? Bugs? Like I said, any differences in Google's version of the API would, by definition, be interoperability problems that need to be corrected.
To make that more concrete: if Oracle's string concatenation function is called `String.concat` and Google's is called `String.append`, then code which calls `String.concat` isn't going to work with Google's implementation, and code which calls `String.append` isn't going to work with Oracle's implementation. It doesn't matter if the APIs are "similar" or not, they have to be _identical_ in order for code written for one system to be interoperable with the other.
- treis 9y agoThe 1% will be things like String.methodNoOneUses or ObscureClass. Even if they aren't identical they will be close enough for 99.999% of the programs people write.
- foota 9y agoHow do you propose they do this black box testing?
- treis 9y agoWrite code, run it through the compiler and create specifications based on what you observe.
- monocasa 9y agoAnd once again, you'd end up in exactly this legal situation since the names are visible via reflection, but somehow aren't functional as viewed by the court. That's one of the most important issues with this ruling; it effectively bans even black box reimplementations.
- hcknwscommenter 9y agoIt is not copyrights problem that obeying the law might be difficult.
- michaelmrose 9y agoSo bugs nobody files then? Why do you think this is a useful distinction. Either APIs aren't copyrightable or we should pass a law that says they aren't immediately.
- hcknwscommenter 9y agoBecause? You want the world to work that way? Well, it doesn't. APIs are copyrightable.
- dragonwriter 9y agoAPIs are copyrightable under a CAFC decision notionally applying 9th Circuit law in this case which the Supreme Court declined to review because, pending the resolution of other issues, they viewed it as not ripe for review. Since this is not within the CAFCs special subject-matter domain (patents or any of the other areas which bring a case within it's jurisdiction; this case is at CAFC because to once had patent claims even though they are no longer live), this ruling doesn't seem to be binding precedent on any lower court. So, it's “law” in only a very weak and tenuous sense.
- hcknwscommenter 9y agoWell, I would love to hear about a circuit court case that says otherwise. Seriously, I have no idea, but I do not believe such exists.
- michaelmrose 9y agoBasically it's not the law yet and may never be the law.
- hcknwscommenter 9y agoUhh. No. At least under any interpretation I know about what the law "is."