4 ms·

There are some very basic elements of this case that this article (and most others) miss, which makes me wonder if they'd read the relevant court documents at a

• Natsu 7y ago
  Yeah, but Google copied only "declaration code" (i.e. the class structure of Java to make it compatible). There are a few other lines, yes, but those came about due to being utterly trivial code that looks more like two people choosing the same trivial implementation randomly from what I recall. Also, regardless of intent, this would have the effect of making APIs copyrightable. That would be terrible for compatibility and would destroy the viability of a lot of work for no good reason at all, unleashing a lot of copyright parasites to go around suing for trivial nonsense. I'm sorry, but this is basically a phone book that can be used by machines of where to find the code that does X. It shouldn't be copyrightable any more than the actual phone book and the structure was copied only to make it compatible. It'd be like suing everyone for making similar electrical plugs, ignoring how they have to meet certain requirements to actually fit in the socket.
  • pron 7y ago
    > this would have the effect of making APIs copyrightable No, only if there has been some copying of substantial portions of copyrighted works. Talking about analogies is irrelevant if you're unfamiliar with the legal framework that determines the suitability of the analogies. For example, one could claim that copyrighting code is "just like" copyrighting algorithms, yet it is established that code is copyrighted (but not patentable) and algorithms are not copyrightable (but are patentable), and the legal system is perfectly fine with that. Why? Because there are important distinctions here, and the question is not whether things are "the same" in the eyes of developers, but whether they're the same in the eyes of IP law. If you don't understand the legal distinction between code and algorithm, then you're missing the most essential background material. As to the rest of your arguments, the relevant ones are the subject of this case. I suggest you read the actual arguments; they're quite interesting.
    • Natsu 7y ago
      > No, only if there has been some copying of substantial portions of copyrighted works. The only 'substantial portions' at stake in this lawsuit are the API declaration itself, which merely tells the system where to find the right code and does not implement any logic. It is absolutely required to copy that and other APIs in order to be compatible, which is why I'm really worried about a lot of judges who have minimal, if any, understanding of the ramifications of this deciding it. Alsup actually understood the issues, but he got overruled by clueless judges.
      • pron 7y ago
        > which merely tells the system where to find the right code and does not implement any logic. This is not true (declarations in Java are evaluated at runtime and compiled to real machine instructions -- i.e. they perform very real logic; also, what algorithm or logic does the following "implementation" Java code describe `return a + b;` ?), but even if it were, I don't see the relevance to copyright. Maybe there are other arguments for excluding such code from copyright, but I am not aware of exclusions for "code that doesn't implement any logic". That's just not the law. > It is absolutely required to copy that and other APIs in order to be compatible That is a fair use question, and it is certainly possible that copyrighted code can be copied for compatibility as a fair use. But this case is about Android, and Android is not and was never intended to be compatible. Google admitted that in court, and said that their goal wasn't compatibility but reaching a large pool of developers who would be familiar with the general structure. I don't know if "familiarity" is a fair-use defense, but that is another question before the court.