4 ms·

If this (somehow) succeeds, could IBM sue Oracle over SQL compatibility?

by tapoxi 6y ago

josefx 6y ago
There are specific exceptions for compatibility. Android Java never tried to be compatible, various required APIs were replaced or are just flat out missing from the runtime library.
- ysleepy 6y ago
  Of course it's about compatibility, about code-reuse of existing libraries. – Which is done a lot to this day.
- curt15 6y ago
  Where are such compatibility exceptions articulated? Section 107 lists four factors for fair use, including "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Trying to achieve full compatibility would seem to require copying more of the original API, not less.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    Usually when someone on Oracle's side brings up compatibility, they are referring indirectly to the test suite required for using the Java trademarks. And they usually are also implying that compatibility should be defined solely by Sun/Oracle, ie. that Oracle should be allowed to require your own Java implementation to be fully functional and 100% compliant to their spec before it is in any way legal, and implementing a mere subset of relevant functionality is not permissible.
  - josefx 6y ago
    After going over the laws(i am not a lawyer) my reasoning might be a bit backwards. I think it would not be a 107 exception but an argument over the technical facts and the creative work contained in an API. To be compatible you have to create a copy of the facts an API describes and copyright is rather limited on collections of facts.
- gpm 6y ago
  I don't believe there is any existing specific exception that allows for completely compatible API s (which you appear to be claiming sql is) but not partially compatible ones (Java). Can you cite a source for this claim?
bluGill 6y ago
IBM contributed SQL to international standards (Or is it just ANSI? I don't care too look that up), so probably not. It isn't clear though, joining ISO generally requires you to license your patents for a "reasonable price" (Reasonably for a big company, tens to thousands of dollars....), but of course IBM didn't agree to that back then, so would courts say IBM implicitly agreed to the standards of the day where it was thought not required or not... Could go either way but I'd guess IBM would lose such a battle.
- wtallis 6y ago
  Any ISO requirements about reasonable patent licensing would be irrelevant here, because this case is about copyrights (albeit a very patent-like category of copyrights that Oracle is trying to establish).
- tmccrary55 6y ago
  Although I don't think it was a standard when Oracle reimplemented it originally. Kind of like how Java is now open source and Google can use it but Oracle's lawsuit is about what Google did before it was open source. But I'd guess there's some kind of statute of limitations or similar for infringement that old.
- kevin_b_er 6y ago
  License your patents maybe, but what about your newfound copyright on the SQL language?

If this (somehow) succeeds, could IBM sue Oracle over SQL compatibility?

by tapoxi 6y ago

If this (somehow) succeeds, could IBM sue Oracle over SQL compatibility?

There are specific exceptions for compatibility. Android Java never tried to be compatible, various required APIs were replaced or are just flat out missing from the runtime library.

ysleepy 6y ago
Of course it's about compatibility, about code-reuse of existing libraries. – Which is done a lot to this day.
curt15 6y ago
Where are such compatibility exceptions articulated? Section 107 lists four factors for fair use, including "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Trying to achieve full compatibility would seem to require copying more of the original API, not less.
- wtallis 6y ago
  Usually when someone on Oracle's side brings up compatibility, they are referring indirectly to the test suite required for using the Java trademarks. And they usually are also implying that compatibility should be defined solely by Sun/Oracle, ie. that Oracle should be allowed to require your own Java implementation to be fully functional and 100% compliant to their spec before it is in any way legal, and implementing a mere subset of relevant functionality is not permissible.
- josefx 6y ago
  After going over the laws(i am not a lawyer) my reasoning might be a bit backwards. I think it would not be a 107 exception but an argument over the technical facts and the creative work contained in an API. To be compatible you have to create a copy of the facts an API describes and copyright is rather limited on collections of facts.
gpm 6y ago
I don't believe there is any existing specific exception that allows for completely compatible API s (which you appear to be claiming sql is) but not partially compatible ones (Java). Can you cite a source for this claim?

bluGill 6y ago

IBM contributed SQL to international standards (Or is it just ANSI? I don't care too look that up), so probably not. It isn't clear though, joining ISO generally requires you to license your patents for a "reasonable price" (Reasonably for a big company, tens to thousands of dollars....), but of course IBM didn't agree to that back then, so would courts say IBM implicitly agreed to the standards of the day where it was thought not required or not... Could go either way but I'd guess IBM would lose such a battle.

wtallis 6y ago
Any ISO requirements about reasonable patent licensing would be irrelevant here, because this case is about copyrights (albeit a very patent-like category of copyrights that Oracle is trying to establish).
tmccrary55 6y ago
Although I don't think it was a standard when Oracle reimplemented it originally. Kind of like how Java is now open source and Google can use it but Oracle's lawsuit is about what Google did before it was open source. But I'd guess there's some kind of statute of limitations or similar for infringement that old.
kevin_b_er 6y ago
License your patents maybe, but what about your newfound copyright on the SQL language?