4 ms·

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 states: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 states: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-i https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/arti... Sun invented Java. Oracle bought Sun. Oracle owned Java. Google copied Java without compensating Oracle, who owned the rights to Java. It's pretty clear. The Supreme Court should confirm that Google owes Oracle compensation for the use of Oracle's intellectual property.

wtallis 7y ago
Re-read that bit of the Constitution that you quoted, and tell me why the Supreme Court should hand down an opinion that will require the entire software industry to grind to a halt for a few decades while we sort out who owns API copyright on everything that's already in use everywhere before we can continue building on top of any of it. How does that "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in any way? More importantly, how is any part of the government obligated to extend IP rights to be as powerful as you want to treat them? Congress was granted the power to create copyright law, but they chose to do so with more limitations than just duration.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  I think rather, it's on you to explain why the software industry doesn't have to respect property laws like every other industry. The industry wouldn't have to grind to a halt if it had been respecting those rights from the beginning. If companies want to provide their code, API's, or any other intellectual property to the world at large, a la public domain, they are free to do that. No one is stopping them. But if someone in the software industry wants to protect their IP, they should have those rights, just like any other inventor/writer in any other industry.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    > I think rather, it's on you to explain why the software industry doesn't have to respect property laws like every other industry. Those "property laws" you allude to don't cover software. Software is covered by separate laws that are designed to function similarly in many ways, but the differences are real. > The industry wouldn't have to grind to a halt if it had been respecting those rights from the beginning. There's no legal precedent establishing the existence of those rights, and quite a bit to the contrary. > But if someone in the software industry wants to protect their IP, they should have those rights, just like any other inventor/writer in any other industry. No. Copyright doesn't apply to every kind of idea or writing. This has been explained elsewhere in this thread, and in most previous discussions about this case.
    - anon1m0us 7y ago
      Yes they do cover software. Software is patentable: https://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html https://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html Software is copyrightable: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-register-copyright-software-application.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-register-copyrig... The precedents establishing those rights are long, they go back decades. You really don't have the facts. I didn't say these rights extend to every kind of idea or writing. I said software writers and inventors should have the same rights as writers and inventors in any other industry. Really, I ask this in all seriousness, why shouldn't software writers have rights over what they write? Why are words in software different than those in books or movies? Why shouldn't inventors of software have the same rights as inventors of mechanical devices?
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        I can buy aftermarket parts for my car that are designed to be substituted for OEM. The aspects that form the interface to the rest of the vehicle seem like the physical equivalent of an API (of course if the parts have electronics, then there might be a software API involved too). So, I ask you, why shouldn't inventors of software have the same rights as inventors of mechanical devices?
      - wtallis 7y ago
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Google copied Java's API, but not the implementation. The question at hand is whether that matters - a question that you are assuming the answer to, as if it is absolutely straightforward and clear. I really doubt your interpretation of the situation.

wtallis 7y ago

Re-read that bit of the Constitution that you quoted, and tell me why the Supreme Court should hand down an opinion that will require the entire software industry to grind to a halt for a few decades while we sort out who owns API copyright on everything that's already in use everywhere before we can continue building on top of any of it. How does that "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in any way? More importantly, how is any part of the government obligated to extend IP rights to be as powerful as you want to treat them? Congress was granted the power to create copyright law, but they chose to do so with more limitations than just duration.

anon1m0us 7y ago
I think rather, it's on you to explain why the software industry doesn't have to respect property laws like every other industry. The industry wouldn't have to grind to a halt if it had been respecting those rights from the beginning. If companies want to provide their code, API's, or any other intellectual property to the world at large, a la public domain, they are free to do that. No one is stopping them. But if someone in the software industry wants to protect their IP, they should have those rights, just like any other inventor/writer in any other industry.
- wtallis 7y ago
  > I think rather, it's on you to explain why the software industry doesn't have to respect property laws like every other industry. Those "property laws" you allude to don't cover software. Software is covered by separate laws that are designed to function similarly in many ways, but the differences are real. > The industry wouldn't have to grind to a halt if it had been respecting those rights from the beginning. There's no legal precedent establishing the existence of those rights, and quite a bit to the contrary. > But if someone in the software industry wants to protect their IP, they should have those rights, just like any other inventor/writer in any other industry. No. Copyright doesn't apply to every kind of idea or writing. This has been explained elsewhere in this thread, and in most previous discussions about this case.
  - anon1m0us 7y ago
    Yes they do cover software. Software is patentable: https://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html https://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html Software is copyrightable: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-register-copyright-software-application.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-register-copyrig... The precedents establishing those rights are long, they go back decades. You really don't have the facts. I didn't say these rights extend to every kind of idea or writing. I said software writers and inventors should have the same rights as writers and inventors in any other industry. Really, I ask this in all seriousness, why shouldn't software writers have rights over what they write? Why are words in software different than those in books or movies? Why shouldn't inventors of software have the same rights as inventors of mechanical devices?
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I can buy aftermarket parts for my car that are designed to be substituted for OEM. The aspects that form the interface to the rest of the vehicle seem like the physical equivalent of an API (of course if the parts have electronics, then there might be a software API involved too). So, I ask you, why shouldn't inventors of software have the same rights as inventors of mechanical devices?
    - wtallis 7y ago

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Google copied Java's API, but not the implementation. The question at hand is whether that matters - a question that you are assuming the answer to, as if it is absolutely straightforward and clear. I really doubt your interpretation of the situation.