6 ms·

Hi ABCLAW, I read page 17 and it is clearly written by someone that doesn't understand software. My non-lawyer reading of the justification implies that polymo

• ABCLAW 9y ago
  1) Judges aren't computer scientists, and LOTS of IP cases read very poorly as a result. This is a structural issue with how judges are educated within court rooms regarding the facts surrounding the disputes in question - but let's just accept it as an unfortunate cost to adjudicating the way we do. Regarding your polymorphism point, you've got the cause and effect swapped. The LACK of polymorphism was the basis for Alsup saying APIs are uncopyrightable. Because there's only one way to do something, the words and the function are linked, and copyright does not protect function, ergo copyright wouldn't protect the word either. This line of reasoning doesn't flow in reverse - Polymorphism doesn't indicate that a work is copyrighted or subject to restrictions upon use, or that various safe harbour provisions/copyright exceptions do not apply. 2) There's no need for a separate discussion. I'm not making the argument; it's literally admitted by Google in the context of this case that they straight up copied chunks of code.
  • loup-vaillant 9y ago
    I have just read from page 17 to 33. I expected a load of bullcrap, but ended up with only one nugget, page 31: > We further find that the district court erred in focusing its merger analysis on the options available to Google at the time of copying. It is well-established that copyrightability and the scope of protectable activity are to be evaluated at the time of creation, not at the time of infringement. The error is subtle, but crucial: when Sun/Oracle released their API, they gave rise to a new functionality: interoperability with whatever they just created. If someone wants to write a drop-in replacement, they have to read the declarations, copy them all, then write a conforming implementation. Changing the order of those declarations would still be possible, but one would still have to start from the original files anyway. Assuming those were readable to begin with, any transformation would be a purely legal trick, so they can say "I didn't really copied it". As far as I can tell the court either ignored or dismissed this interoperability issue. Agreeing with Oracle that Google could have renamed its function names, even though those names are part of the API they were conforming to (the `max` function is obviously part of the standard library), is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.
    • ABCLAW 9y ago
      Google specifically decided not to use 'interoperability' as a functional objective constraining their code design because there was a wall of evidence against that interpretation. There's a comprehensive write-up elsewhere in this thread about it.
      • loup-vaillant 9y ago
        I have read it, and I disagree. I am not arguing that Google has an interoperability exemption. I am arguing that the API is not (or should not be) copyrightable in the first place, because any attempt at interoperability would instantly void it. I would also argue that interoperability with the training of masses of developers is a thing. Saying it is not only strengthens the relevant network effects, which is bad for competition. I doubt that last one would hold up in court, but still. See how C++ became popular. Not quite compatible with C, but close enough to spur adoption. And overall, it is very weird that Google's intent matters here. They should be judged on what they did, and maybe whether they did it on purpose. Why they did it should be no more than extenuating or aggravating circumstances.
        • ABCLAW 9y ago
          >I am arguing that the API is not (or should not be) copyrightable in the first place, because any attempt at interoperability would instantly void it. The court specifically deals with this assertion and does not come to the conclusion that you do. >And overall, it is very weird that Google's intent matters here. No it isn't. This case was about Fair use, and intention matters for some of the test elements. A bunch of people think this case is about API copywritability. They're four years too late to complain.
          • loup-vaillant 9y ago
            > The court specifically deals with this assertion and does not come to the conclusion that you do. I know. I did read their lengthy conclusion. > A bunch of people think this case is about API copywritability. Too bad it isn't. That ruling from 4 years ago is insane. And I recall people did complain at the time, did they not?
  • maire 9y ago
    Hi ABCLAW, I just reread the document, and I think you are referring to page 36. I think Oracle is trying to get around the Sega vs Nintendo case which does protect the API. I believe the Oracle argument is tenuous since you still need to import the Math class to use it. If you don't import it, they you have to specify the Math class every time you use the method. Even if Oracle is correct, then it would mean the Math class is not in the API, it is an implementation detail. Then we are back to the discussion if an open source implementation is legitimate replacement for clean room implementation. Then this becomes an open source discussion and not an API discussion. The whole Oracle discussion of API seems circular and might be a red herring. The real discussion is at the very end where Oracle says that Google only implemented a subset of the API and not the full API.
  • jimrandomh 9y ago
    You aren't using the same definition of polymorphism as maire is. In the context of software, polymorphism is the practice of having an interface, one side of which has multiple alternatives which do different things.
  • Oletros 9y ago
    > 2) There's no need for a separate discussion. I'm not making the argument; it's literally admitted by Google in the context of this case that they straight up copied chunks of code. One function, rangechececk.
    • monocasa 9y ago
      Which Alsup publicly admonished Oracle's counsel for trying to make a big deal out of it.