4 ms·

You do realize that if literally all you do is change the names and spellings then you'll still be in violation of copyright, right? In general that is largely

by dagw 6y ago

You do realize that if literally all you do is change the names and spellings then you'll still be in violation of copyright, right? In general that is largely true. In the particular type of copyright being argued in this particular case Oracle has stated that changing the name or spelling of the methods would have been enough to avoid being in violation: Using the district court's "java.lang.Math.max" example, Oracle explains that the developers could have called it any number of things, including "Math.maximum" or "Arith.larger." This was not a situation where Oracle was selecting among preordained names and phrases to create its packages. As the district court recognized, moreover, "the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked."

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Oracle has stated that changing the name or spelling of the methods would have been enough to avoid being in violation: “Oracle has stated” doesn't make it consistent with the law. Sure, the Supreme Court could create a new rule in this case which would make it true, but there is no existing legal rule I can ser that would make thesaurus substitution not infringement of something that was otherwise infringement.
simiones 6y ago
You are misinterpreting that argument. To prove copyrightability, Oracle had to show that designing an API is a creative act and not a purely mechanical/functional one. That is the purpose of this argument: if the function would only work if named java.lang.Math.max and not work if named Math.maximum, then anyone describing the same concept would be forced to use the same name, so the name wouldn't be copyrightable. They are not stating that Google would have been in the clear if they had named it differently, they are just trying to show that Google could have named it differently without changing the meaning of the code one iota. For example, someone writing a recipe for omelette has to say "2 eggs" simply because that's what omelette needs. You can't express it any other way, so it's not a creative act, so it can't be protected by copyright.
- bismuthsalt 6y ago
  Designing an API is a creative act. An API is source code. Witness thousands of languages, all with recognizably different standard libraries, including languages like Go or Dart created by Google themselves. The problem is less with individual examples like "max" vs "maximum" or "write" vs "scribble", but more with thousands of packages, classes and methods, 99% of which have the exact names and structure as the Sun's Java ones. That is blatant theft. Google stole Java code from Sun. Shame on them. What we need the law to do is to distinguish between copying a piece of code and using a piece of code. Just because I use your code doesn't mean you own my code too. What we need the software industry to understand is that relying on a proprietary library makes it impossible to cheaply switch your code to an alternative implementation without rewriting your own code. Alternatives exist: use software with an open license model, or shim out the proprietary library.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > The problem is less with individual examples like "max" vs "maximum" or "write" vs "scribble", but more with thousands of packages, classes and methods, 99% of which have the exact names and structure as the Sun's Java ones. That is blatant theft. You know, it might be worth asking the engineer who wrote java.lang.Math how he came up with those names. Actually, you don't--he already answered it one of the amici briefs. The answer was that he took it from C. In other words, taking Oracle's argument at face value means that the example API it is accusing Google of illegally copying is itself an illegal copy of the UNIX copyright, whoever actually owns that now.
    - bismuthsalt 6y ago
      Perhaps the Sun engineer did indeed copy from UNIX to some mild degree The line between "inspired from" and "copied from" is a fine line indeed. When does a term stop being proprietary and enter the vernacular of a specific profession or of humanity at large? I lean rather liberal on this question, and I hope the law will too. OTOH, what is blatant theft is for your 'original' work to overlap 99%, in both names and structure, to prior work. Google engaged in blatant theft, there is no doubt about it. We are not even talking about a derived work, we are talking about copying word for word a substantial part of somebody else's work.

by dagw 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Oracle has stated that changing the name or spelling of the methods would have been enough to avoid being in violation: “Oracle has stated” doesn't make it consistent with the law. Sure, the Supreme Court could create a new rule in this case which would make it true, but there is no existing legal rule I can ser that would make thesaurus substitution not infringement of something that was otherwise infringement.

simiones 6y ago

You are misinterpreting that argument. To prove copyrightability, Oracle had to show that designing an API is a creative act and not a purely mechanical/functional one. That is the purpose of this argument: if the function would only work if named java.lang.Math.max and not work if named Math.maximum, then anyone describing the same concept would be forced to use the same name, so the name wouldn't be copyrightable. They are not stating that Google would have been in the clear if they had named it differently, they are just trying to show that Google could have named it differently without changing the meaning of the code one iota. For example, someone writing a recipe for omelette has to say "2 eggs" simply because that's what omelette needs. You can't express it any other way, so it's not a creative act, so it can't be protected by copyright.

bismuthsalt 6y ago
Designing an API is a creative act. An API is source code. Witness thousands of languages, all with recognizably different standard libraries, including languages like Go or Dart created by Google themselves. The problem is less with individual examples like "max" vs "maximum" or "write" vs "scribble", but more with thousands of packages, classes and methods, 99% of which have the exact names and structure as the Sun's Java ones. That is blatant theft. Google stole Java code from Sun. Shame on them. What we need the law to do is to distinguish between copying a piece of code and using a piece of code. Just because I use your code doesn't mean you own my code too. What we need the software industry to understand is that relying on a proprietary library makes it impossible to cheaply switch your code to an alternative implementation without rewriting your own code. Alternatives exist: use software with an open license model, or shim out the proprietary library.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > The problem is less with individual examples like "max" vs "maximum" or "write" vs "scribble", but more with thousands of packages, classes and methods, 99% of which have the exact names and structure as the Sun's Java ones. That is blatant theft. You know, it might be worth asking the engineer who wrote java.lang.Math how he came up with those names. Actually, you don't--he already answered it one of the amici briefs. The answer was that he took it from C. In other words, taking Oracle's argument at face value means that the example API it is accusing Google of illegally copying is itself an illegal copy of the UNIX copyright, whoever actually owns that now.
  - bismuthsalt 6y ago
    Perhaps the Sun engineer did indeed copy from UNIX to some mild degree The line between "inspired from" and "copied from" is a fine line indeed. When does a term stop being proprietary and enter the vernacular of a specific profession or of humanity at large? I lean rather liberal on this question, and I hope the law will too. OTOH, what is blatant theft is for your 'original' work to overlap 99%, in both names and structure, to prior work. Google engaged in blatant theft, there is no doubt about it. We are not even talking about a derived work, we are talking about copying word for word a substantial part of somebody else's work.