5 ms·

> copywritten copyrighted "Copywritten" probably means nothing, but if it did, it would have something to with copy writing, the act of writing for publicatio

> copywritten copyrighted "Copywritten" probably means nothing, but if it did, it would have something to with copy writing, the act of writing for publication (usually commercial, usually not long-form). Added: FYI "copyrighting" is not a conscious decision, or an action you can take. Copyright emerges automatically when you create a work, what they've done is defend their copyright in court, and the courts have mixed opinions on the matter.

chc 7y ago
That is a gross mischaracterization of what Oracle did. They didn't just defend a copyright in court. They pushed to extend copyright to a mostly functional element that copyright law has not traditionally been thought to cover. It's a tremendously harmful viewpoint for interoperability.
- btilly 7y ago
  Not just "not traditionally been thought to cover", but which existing precedent said DID NOT cover. Does it surprise anyone that this case was decided by the Federal Circuit? The rogue court most consistently overturned by the Supreme Court, which also is responsible for most of the disastrous software patent cases out there. The only bright light is that the Supreme Court has reopened the question. Given how often they overturn the Federal Circuit, we have real hope that we'll return to the previous precedent. Which is that since matching APIs is a functional part of how code works, and things that are functional are by law not copyrightable, APIs are not copyrightable.
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
Yes, copywritten isn't a word, but their point was that Oracle pushed for API's to be copywritable, which was not the case before their suit. It's an incredibly bad result with many shitty implications that are currently mostly being ignored but could lead to legal nuclear war at any time.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > It's an incredibly bad result with many shitty implications that are currently mostly being ignored but could lead to legal nuclear war at any time. I mean, it has been big news, and it has already been nuclear war, with Oracle putting Google in a position to switch android from Dalvik (and successors) to OpenJDK. I agree that it could become a pretty horrible precedent (imagine if Microsoft forbade Sun from implementing Excel functions in StarOffice, or for that matter, if MS were prevented from producing Excel in the first place).
  - pron 7y ago
    > imagine if Microsoft forbade Sun from implementing Excel functions in StarOffice, or for that matter, if MS were prevented from producing Excel in the first place The things you're talking about are already protected by patents, and the copyrightability of APIs have nothing to do with them. At the very least, for something to be copyrightable it must be some specific fixed expression (a piece of text, image, video or audio). So the O v. G ruling applies only to actual (code) APIs; not to protocols (or REST "APIs") and certainly not to stuff that's already protected by patents (the distinction between the two may not always make sense to programmers, but it is what it is; for example, algorithms are patentable but not copyrightable, while programs are copyrightable but not patentable).
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      You should do some reasearch on the Oracle vs Google case.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      It's literally no different. Excell has APIs just like Java, it's just the code goes in cells rather than on lines.
- jcranendonk 7y ago
  Not to belabor the point, but... "copyrightable".

chc 7y ago

That is a gross mischaracterization of what Oracle did. They didn't just defend a copyright in court. They pushed to extend copyright to a mostly functional element that copyright law has not traditionally been thought to cover. It's a tremendously harmful viewpoint for interoperability.

btilly 7y ago
Not just "not traditionally been thought to cover", but which existing precedent said DID NOT cover. Does it surprise anyone that this case was decided by the Federal Circuit? The rogue court most consistently overturned by the Supreme Court, which also is responsible for most of the disastrous software patent cases out there. The only bright light is that the Supreme Court has reopened the question. Given how often they overturn the Federal Circuit, we have real hope that we'll return to the previous precedent. Which is that since matching APIs is a functional part of how code works, and things that are functional are by law not copyrightable, APIs are not copyrightable.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

Yes, copywritten isn't a word, but their point was that Oracle pushed for API's to be copywritable, which was not the case before their suit. It's an incredibly bad result with many shitty implications that are currently mostly being ignored but could lead to legal nuclear war at any time.

microcolonel 7y ago
> It's an incredibly bad result with many shitty implications that are currently mostly being ignored but could lead to legal nuclear war at any time. I mean, it has been big news, and it has already been nuclear war, with Oracle putting Google in a position to switch android from Dalvik (and successors) to OpenJDK. I agree that it could become a pretty horrible precedent (imagine if Microsoft forbade Sun from implementing Excel functions in StarOffice, or for that matter, if MS were prevented from producing Excel in the first place).
- pron 7y ago
  > imagine if Microsoft forbade Sun from implementing Excel functions in StarOffice, or for that matter, if MS were prevented from producing Excel in the first place The things you're talking about are already protected by patents, and the copyrightability of APIs have nothing to do with them. At the very least, for something to be copyrightable it must be some specific fixed expression (a piece of text, image, video or audio). So the O v. G ruling applies only to actual (code) APIs; not to protocols (or REST "APIs") and certainly not to stuff that's already protected by patents (the distinction between the two may not always make sense to programmers, but it is what it is; for example, algorithms are patentable but not copyrightable, while programs are copyrightable but not patentable).
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    You should do some reasearch on the Oracle vs Google case.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    It's literally no different. Excell has APIs just like Java, it's just the code goes in cells rather than on lines.
jcranendonk 7y ago
Not to belabor the point, but... "copyrightable".