4 ms·

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

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?

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?