4 ms·

In 2008, no smartphone could really handle the full Java API. Java failed on mobile precisely because Desktop Java was a pig, and the mobile variants were eithe

In 2008, no smartphone could really handle the full Java API. Java failed on mobile precisely because Desktop Java was a pig, and the mobile variants were either pigs too, or so non-featured, that they represented no market parity. Does anyone really thing Swing, or PersonalJava, or MIDP on phones, or even JavaFX, was going to compete with iOS? The whole write-once-run-anywhere promise of Java is a sham. Any non-trivial professional Java app, used some non-portable APIs. Take the popular ones like Limewire, or IntelliJ, and they end up on each platform, hooking into MacOS, Windows, et al, specific APIs that require JNI code. " Imagine if this got applied to protocols" That's exactly what happened since the 80s. Do you know how many versions of IMAP there are if you count the extensions? Or Jabber? The internet was built on "rough consensus and running code". People shared code and ideas freely. That's what built the net. Copyrighting APIs with 100+ year time spans is INSANE.

saurik 7y ago
> " Imagine if this got applied to protocols" > That's exactly what happened since the 80s. You managed to invert my paragraph somehow :/. Imagine if [this: the idea that APIs are copyrightable] got applied to protocols... that would be horrible, and would have had massive (negative) impacts on the web; this categorically did not happen "since the 80s". Therefore, paying no attention to the law or the precedent or even the facts of the case, we all have this visceral reaction to the idea behind this lawsuit and want it to be decided in a way that feels like it works for us... but maybe the issue is that the law is broken. > Copyrighting APIs with 100+ year time spans is INSANE. I would argue copyrighting anything with 100+ year time spans is INSANE. The idea that developing and distributing techniques that even merely help people copy things is illegal (a la Section 1201(b))... the issue is that this entire area of law is INSANE :/.

saurik 7y ago

> " Imagine if this got applied to protocols" > That's exactly what happened since the 80s. You managed to invert my paragraph somehow :/. Imagine if [this: the idea that APIs are copyrightable] got applied to protocols... that would be horrible, and would have had massive (negative) impacts on the web; this categorically did not happen "since the 80s". Therefore, paying no attention to the law or the precedent or even the facts of the case, we all have this visceral reaction to the idea behind this lawsuit and want it to be decided in a way that feels like it works for us... but maybe the issue is that the law is broken. > Copyrighting APIs with 100+ year time spans is INSANE. I would argue copyrighting anything with 100+ year time spans is INSANE. The idea that developing and distributing techniques that even merely help people copy things is illegal (a la Section 1201(b))... the issue is that this entire area of law is INSANE :/.