3 ms·

I’m super conflicted because I think I side with Oracle here and I never seem to. Java had an established API. It had a license. Google could have licensed it a

I’m super conflicted because I think I side with Oracle here and I never seem to. Java had an established API. It had a license. Google could have licensed it and the end result would have been the same: Java apps on Android. Weren’t there even Google brass worried about this in emails? It seems to me Oracle is due license fees but SCOTUS ruled otherwise and I guess that’s overall better for the industry.

wtallis 6y ago
Copyright protection is not an automatic right that you're entitled to for anything you put effort into creating and want to make money off of. There are more specific requirements for what you need to do to secure copyright protection or patent protection, and there are limits on the exclusive rights those get you. "They worked hard on it and want to charge money for it" is not a sound argument.
- gigatexal 6y ago
  Edit: I’m dumb. I need to read all of the ruling and then research what fair-use really means. Again I’m not a lawyer and I know there’s nuance and precedent in the law I just am having a hard time with the seemingly obvious-ness of this case. Some examples to share how I am thinking of this: 1. Procuring land, paying contractors, buying materials, etc., doesn’t entitle you to rents in perpetuity on say an apartment you build? Or 2. if I produce music — until that music ages out and becomes a public good — and I own the masters and all the rights to it having put in the work and the time and the money etc., am I not entitled to all the fees from licensing it to be played and consumed? I am having a hard time seeing how it’s not a sound argument given that it seems very clear that Sun Microsystems put in a lot of work and effort and time and money to get Java off the ground and here Google comes and copies it even when there was an easy way to get a license.

wtallis 6y ago

Copyright protection is not an automatic right that you're entitled to for anything you put effort into creating and want to make money off of. There are more specific requirements for what you need to do to secure copyright protection or patent protection, and there are limits on the exclusive rights those get you. "They worked hard on it and want to charge money for it" is not a sound argument.

gigatexal 6y ago
Edit: I’m dumb. I need to read all of the ruling and then research what fair-use really means. Again I’m not a lawyer and I know there’s nuance and precedent in the law I just am having a hard time with the seemingly obvious-ness of this case. Some examples to share how I am thinking of this: 1. Procuring land, paying contractors, buying materials, etc., doesn’t entitle you to rents in perpetuity on say an apartment you build? Or 2. if I produce music — until that music ages out and becomes a public good — and I own the masters and all the rights to it having put in the work and the time and the money etc., am I not entitled to all the fees from licensing it to be played and consumed? I am having a hard time seeing how it’s not a sound argument given that it seems very clear that Sun Microsystems put in a lot of work and effort and time and money to get Java off the ground and here Google comes and copies it even when there was an easy way to get a license.