5 ms·
Couldn't edit my comment above to add: The interoperability argument is also disingenuous because Google didn't copy all of Oracle's Java libraries. It only cop
by az226 6y ago
Couldn't edit my comment above to add: The interoperability argument is also disingenuous because Google didn't copy all of Oracle's Java libraries. It only copied the ones it deemed necessary to provide sufficient coverage for the needs of the Android platform and that developers of Oracle's Java community were familiar with. As the justices pointed out, it's a one-way interoperability.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 6y ago> If this wasn't protected, you would have zero incentive to build high quality libraries or to invest in making the platform popular if someone else can just come along and copy it. I guess I must be hallucinating all those S3-compatible libraries and services. > As the justices pointed out, it's a one-way interoperability. It makes a large majority of the same code work on both. That's not one-way. Porting in either direction is vastly improved versus them making their own APIs.
- az226 6y agoFair enough. The decision to allow someone else to copy the code should be up to the owner and not be given away. Also copyright protections aren’t given up because it makes a third party’s life easier. That’s also what was said during the hearing.
- Dylan16807 6y ago> Also copyright protections aren’t given up because it makes a third party’s life easier. That’s also what was said during the hearing. Yeah but if your mandate is to promote the arts and sciences then you desperately want interoperability to be easy and encouraged.
- sergeykish 6y agoOpen Office supports only so much of Microsoft Word .doc, antiword [1] supports even less. Should we consider them disingenuous? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiword https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiword