4 ms·

> A car's width is not its interface. Let's improve the analogy! My proposal => that you chose to make the door handles six inches because of UX, and Oracle s

> A car's width is not its interface. Let's improve the analogy! My proposal => that you chose to make the door handles six inches because of UX, and Oracle showed up and said they made theirs six inches before you did.

mehrdadn 6y ago
You can't seriously suggest copying the width of 1 door handle is equivalent to copying all of the Java API, right? I don't think if Google provided an alternative for 1 function it would be in this lawsuit. Your analogy is just a tiny portion of the alternative I already portrayed: they copied the entire structure of the framework. Copy 1 door handle, 1 steering wheel, 1 precise dashboard design, 1 glove compartment, etc. and I feel your analogy would result in a lawsuit just the same? (For reference none of this is meant to reflect my position on what the law actually is, or should be. I'm just considering analogies here.)
- salawat 6y ago
  The issue is that in engineering there are certain patterns of implementation that are simply converged on. Upholding the API copyright would be like giving Craftsman grounds to sue Ryobi for manufacturing circular saws because Ryobi combined a power cord, an electrical motor, a toothed circular blade and a housing; a state of affairs that only seems even remotely plausible to endorse because source code is inherently a read product. You look at it and see an authored work. I look at it and I see an n-dimensional turing-space relationship diagram as expressed through transform functions. And last I checked, you could patent some math(RSA), but not not copyright it. Eventually it's just prior art.
  - salawatdumb 6y ago
    You look at yourself and see a developer. I look at you and see someone with their head lodged so far up their rectum that they can't tell whether their posts make them sound like a moron. I bet you're a rust dev.

mehrdadn 6y ago

You can't seriously suggest copying the width of 1 door handle is equivalent to copying all of the Java API, right? I don't think if Google provided an alternative for 1 function it would be in this lawsuit. Your analogy is just a tiny portion of the alternative I already portrayed: they copied the entire structure of the framework. Copy 1 door handle, 1 steering wheel, 1 precise dashboard design, 1 glove compartment, etc. and I feel your analogy would result in a lawsuit just the same? (For reference none of this is meant to reflect my position on what the law actually is, or should be. I'm just considering analogies here.)

salawat 6y ago
The issue is that in engineering there are certain patterns of implementation that are simply converged on. Upholding the API copyright would be like giving Craftsman grounds to sue Ryobi for manufacturing circular saws because Ryobi combined a power cord, an electrical motor, a toothed circular blade and a housing; a state of affairs that only seems even remotely plausible to endorse because source code is inherently a read product. You look at it and see an authored work. I look at it and I see an n-dimensional turing-space relationship diagram as expressed through transform functions. And last I checked, you could patent some math(RSA), but not not copyright it. Eventually it's just prior art.
- salawatdumb 6y ago
  You look at yourself and see a developer. I look at you and see someone with their head lodged so far up their rectum that they can't tell whether their posts make them sound like a moron. I bet you're a rust dev.