4 ms·
Holy moly, is this still the case about like a 10 line chunk of code? And it's still going on? I can't believe Oracle hasn't gotten more bad press for this. Wha
by rococode 9y ago
Holy moly, is this still the case about like a 10 line chunk of code? And it's still going on? I can't believe Oracle hasn't gotten more bad press for this. What an obvious moneygrab attempt... Hopefully this will be overturned again by someone with a bit more brains as it has terrible implications for other work done in the past couple of decades.
- shakna 9y ago> Holy moly, is this still the case about like a 10 line chunk of code? 62 class headers. Because Android and Java have a compatible API. In the progress of this ridiculous case, APIs have been found to be non-copywritable, up until the CAFC got involved. Judges with expert testimony, and expert experience have repeatedly said they are not able to be copywrited. On all four fair-use factors. CAFC then gets the case and removes jury testimony, and overturns previous decisions through things such as saying Android is opensource, it is commercial in the same manner that Napster was. Despite Android's API have different subclasses, methods, and body, the CAFC did not believe that they altered the "expressive content" of Java's API. Whoever ran this trial doesn't seem to grasp the bare basics of code.
- innagadadavida 9y agoThis is just a fight between two evil for-profit companies. Designing APIs cost time/effort/money. Coding it is the easy part.