5 ms·

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 abou

by 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.
    - Natsu 7y ago
      > This is not true (declarations in Java are evaluated at runtime and compiled to real machine instructions Yeah, so what? That's just the system putting the right values in the right place. Also, it obscures the fact that this resulting JVM bytecode could, in fact, be very different for Google & Oracle's implementation, though some parts of it will likely be similar just because programmers choose the simplest/most efficient ways to do things and those are necessarily similar. > what algorithm or logic does the following "implementation" Java code describe `return a + b;` ?) Addition, normally, though operators can be overridden so it might be string concatenation or whatnot depending on the types. > That is a fair use question, and it is certainly possible that copyrighted code can be copied for compatibility as a fair use. More to the point, Google won as to fair use before the jury before a judge overturned their verdict... Anyhow, yes, changing all the names means that you have to do trivial and stupid rewrites of lots of code to replace names. Whether someone named something to return the maximum of several elements max() or maximum() or what have you is not the sort of 'creativity' that Congress ever had in mind to protect. Copyright was designed in an age when written works were creative rather than functional and several of the doctrines need to be adapted to make any sort of reasonable purpose out of this. The fact is that making APIs copyrightable would cause a lot of legal destruction--senseless lawsuits that enrich only lawyers and impoverish the public--while destroying a lot of innovation and open source that the public already has for the sole benefit of IP law firms. It shouldn't be surprising that only those who hope to profit by trolling the people who actually make useful stuff are excited by this.
pjmlp 7y ago
No it is not, those electrical plugs follow market regulations that in most countries have to be paid for certifications. Many companies do patents as means to protect their IP when copyright isn't enough. If anything this might be a welcome change to the culture of free beer.
- Natsu 7y ago
  > Many companies do patents as means to protect their IP when copyright isn't enough. It's hard to believe that 95 years of protection after publication (or 120 after creation) "isn't enough" for corporations, but I'm sure they'll find longer terms in one country and then push the others to "harmonize" on the new value at some point or what have you. Walt might lose his incentive to create new works if the Mouse's copyright is allowed to expire on January 1, 2024.
  - pron 7y ago
    Copyright and patents apply to different works. In the case of software in the US, patents apply to algorithms or protocols (more precisely, to their implementations on computers) while copyright covers code.
    - Natsu 7y ago
      Source code, which is what we're discussing here in Oracle vs. Google, may be covered by both, despite some Supreme Court rulings that tried to limit what may be claimed to at least avoid simple recitations of a standard computer. Of course, my view is that the real problem is that 101 can be met piecemeal. The novel part doesn't have to be patentable subject matter and the patentable subject matter doesn't have to be novel. So one would just recite claims of allegedly novel software running on an non-novel, but otherwise patentable computer. If novelty had to reside in the part of the claims that was patentable subject matter, I think a lot of the nonsense would have vanished, though I might well underestimate their cleverness in finding new and strange ways to disappoint us.
      - 7y ago
namdnay 7y ago
I was wondering about physical equivalents. Does anyone know if the Torx system was copyrighted/patented? Not a trademark on the name Torx, a real protection on that design of screw head/driver
- wtallis 7y ago
  Screw drives are patent territory. Just about every one you've used except the simple flat head driver for slotted screws was patented at some point.

by Natsu 7y ago

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.
  - Natsu 7y ago
    > This is not true (declarations in Java are evaluated at runtime and compiled to real machine instructions Yeah, so what? That's just the system putting the right values in the right place. Also, it obscures the fact that this resulting JVM bytecode could, in fact, be very different for Google & Oracle's implementation, though some parts of it will likely be similar just because programmers choose the simplest/most efficient ways to do things and those are necessarily similar. > what algorithm or logic does the following "implementation" Java code describe `return a + b;` ?) Addition, normally, though operators can be overridden so it might be string concatenation or whatnot depending on the types. > That is a fair use question, and it is certainly possible that copyrighted code can be copied for compatibility as a fair use. More to the point, Google won as to fair use before the jury before a judge overturned their verdict... Anyhow, yes, changing all the names means that you have to do trivial and stupid rewrites of lots of code to replace names. Whether someone named something to return the maximum of several elements max() or maximum() or what have you is not the sort of 'creativity' that Congress ever had in mind to protect. Copyright was designed in an age when written works were creative rather than functional and several of the doctrines need to be adapted to make any sort of reasonable purpose out of this. The fact is that making APIs copyrightable would cause a lot of legal destruction--senseless lawsuits that enrich only lawyers and impoverish the public--while destroying a lot of innovation and open source that the public already has for the sole benefit of IP law firms. It shouldn't be surprising that only those who hope to profit by trolling the people who actually make useful stuff are excited by this.

pjmlp 7y ago

No it is not, those electrical plugs follow market regulations that in most countries have to be paid for certifications. Many companies do patents as means to protect their IP when copyright isn't enough. If anything this might be a welcome change to the culture of free beer.

Natsu 7y ago
> Many companies do patents as means to protect their IP when copyright isn't enough. It's hard to believe that 95 years of protection after publication (or 120 after creation) "isn't enough" for corporations, but I'm sure they'll find longer terms in one country and then push the others to "harmonize" on the new value at some point or what have you. Walt might lose his incentive to create new works if the Mouse's copyright is allowed to expire on January 1, 2024.
- pron 7y ago
  Copyright and patents apply to different works. In the case of software in the US, patents apply to algorithms or protocols (more precisely, to their implementations on computers) while copyright covers code.
  - Natsu 7y ago
    Source code, which is what we're discussing here in Oracle vs. Google, may be covered by both, despite some Supreme Court rulings that tried to limit what may be claimed to at least avoid simple recitations of a standard computer. Of course, my view is that the real problem is that 101 can be met piecemeal. The novel part doesn't have to be patentable subject matter and the patentable subject matter doesn't have to be novel. So one would just recite claims of allegedly novel software running on an non-novel, but otherwise patentable computer. If novelty had to reside in the part of the claims that was patentable subject matter, I think a lot of the nonsense would have vanished, though I might well underestimate their cleverness in finding new and strange ways to disappoint us.
    - 7y ago

namdnay 7y ago

I was wondering about physical equivalents. Does anyone know if the Torx system was copyrighted/patented? Not a trademark on the name Torx, a real protection on that design of screw head/driver

wtallis 7y ago
Screw drives are patent territory. Just about every one you've used except the simple flat head driver for slotted screws was patented at some point.