4 ms·

Not so. The appeals court found in Oracle's favor, not Google's. Meaning they found that the API was copyrightable, and that Google's use was not fair use. The

Not so. The appeals court found in Oracle's favor, not Google's. Meaning they found that the API was copyrightable, and that Google's use was not fair use. The majority supreme court opinion basically said "even assuming it is copyrightable, this IS fair use", with the implication that if it's not copyrightable, there is no case, so the same outcome, a win for Google. They intentionally were keeping their decision as little precedent setting as possible. Thomas' dissent said "you can't decide this based on hypotheticals! You have to decide whether it's copyrightable or not first!" - had justice Thomas felt the code was not copyrightable in the first place he could have written his own concurring opinion. In fact, he did not; his position, as made clear in his dissent, was that he felt APIs -were- copyrightable, AND that this was not fair use. The court did not agree with him. And had the court first started with addressing whether an API was copyrightable, the outcome would have either been they are not (a more far reaching decision, but still a win for Google), or that they were, and that this was fair use (so the same outcome, but now with, again, a more far reaching decision). You claim that Thomas is saying that "if the court decided it was copyrightable, then they would have also had to have found this was not fair use". If that is indeed what he said (not my take on it, but I'll grant it), that is false on the face of it, as that is -explicitly what the court did not do-. They accepted it was copyrightable as a hypothetical, and then focused solely on, if that is true, was this was fair use? And they found that it was. To form an argument in this way is logically consistent; Thomas may disagree with it, as is his right, but the statement that the court has made a logical error is absurd.

pdonis 6y ago
> Not so. The appeals court found in Oracle's favor, not Google's. Meaning they found that the API was copyrightable, and that Google's use was not fair use. Again, you are not disagreeing; you are agreeing. Thomas is arguing that the appeals court's ruling, which you correctly describe, should have been affirmed. Which is the opposite decision from the one the Court made, just as I said. > The majority supreme court opinion basically said "even assuming it is copyrightable, this IS fair use" Here is the exact quote from the opinion: "we assume, for argument’s sake, that the material was copyrightable. But we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use." In other words, the Court did not even consider the question of whether or not the material was copyrightable. They assumed it "for the sake of argument", which is just a dodge. They should have considered the question directly; and here is what Thomas says about that: "The majority purports to assume, without deciding, that the code is protected. But its fair-use analysis is wholly inconsistent with the substantial protection Congress gave to computer code. By skipping over the copyrightability question, the majority disregards half the relevant statutory text and distorts its fair-use analysis." Further comments below. > You claim that Thomas is saying that "if the court decided it was copyrightable, then they would have also had to have found this was not fair use". Yes, because the relevant facts that would support a ruling, based on the statute, that the code was copyrightable, also indicate, based on the statute, that Google's use was not fair use. But by skipping over the copyrightability analysis, the majority is simply ignoring those facts and those portions of the statute. That is Thomas's point. > To form an argument in this way is logically consistent Not if it ignores additional information that is not consistent with information used in the argument. Thomas is not saying that the Court's argument is logically inconsistent on its face. He's saying that it's inconsistent once you put back in the information that the Court left out: the facts that support a ruling, based on the statute, that the code was copyrightable, also support a ruling, based on the statute, that Google's use was not fair use. The majority is simply failing to consider those facts. In other words, the Court can't just "assume for the sake of argument" that the code is copyrightable in a vacuum. They have to take into account the relevant facts of the case that support such an assumption, and consider the implications of those facts, and the relevant parts of the statute, for the fair use analysis.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  >> Not if it ignores additional information that is not consistent with information used in the argument That is your assumption. You assume the majority ignored that additional information. You say the court is failing to consider the facts that would indicate it copyrightable; that is -assumption- on your part. The court had the same set of facts in front of it (read: the entire body of relevant law); the majority chose to apply them to a different problem than the one Thomas wanted them to be applied to, and came to a different outcome than the one Thomas wanted. The court can totally "assume for the sake of argument"; it does not reduce the surface of the law, it does not take facts out of the equation. It just makes arguing one part of it moot.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > You assume the majority ignored that additional information. If they didn't, why is it never even mentioned in the opinion? Why does the majority not even acknowledge the fact that there are other facts involved, which do not support their conclusion? Of course any answer I might propose would also be an "assumption" to you, but I'll propose one anyway: because the majority knew quite well that if they did mention or acknowledge any of those other facts, it would be obvious to anyone reading the opinion that their argument was not cogent. My reading of many, many other Supreme Court opinions over the years tells me that that kind of thing happens all the time. At least dissenting opinions are available, though it seems like the ones that really point out fundamental flaws, like this one by Thomas, never actually get any traction. > The court can totally "assume for the sake of argument" The court can of course do whatever it pleases; there is no higher court of appeal to overrule them, and the Justices serve for life so they can simply not care what anyone else thinks of their rulings. That doesn't make it right when they twist the law, or outright ignore it, to produce rulings that are in accordance with their ideological preconceptions. Which, again, is something that happens all the time.

pdonis 6y ago

> Not so. The appeals court found in Oracle's favor, not Google's. Meaning they found that the API was copyrightable, and that Google's use was not fair use. Again, you are not disagreeing; you are agreeing. Thomas is arguing that the appeals court's ruling, which you correctly describe, should have been affirmed. Which is the opposite decision from the one the Court made, just as I said. > The majority supreme court opinion basically said "even assuming it is copyrightable, this IS fair use" Here is the exact quote from the opinion: "we assume, for argument’s sake, that the material was copyrightable. But we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use." In other words, the Court did not even consider the question of whether or not the material was copyrightable. They assumed it "for the sake of argument", which is just a dodge. They should have considered the question directly; and here is what Thomas says about that: "The majority purports to assume, without deciding, that the code is protected. But its fair-use analysis is wholly inconsistent with the substantial protection Congress gave to computer code. By skipping over the copyrightability question, the majority disregards half the relevant statutory text and distorts its fair-use analysis." Further comments below. > You claim that Thomas is saying that "if the court decided it was copyrightable, then they would have also had to have found this was not fair use". Yes, because the relevant facts that would support a ruling, based on the statute, that the code was copyrightable, also indicate, based on the statute, that Google's use was not fair use. But by skipping over the copyrightability analysis, the majority is simply ignoring those facts and those portions of the statute. That is Thomas's point. > To form an argument in this way is logically consistent Not if it ignores additional information that is not consistent with information used in the argument. Thomas is not saying that the Court's argument is logically inconsistent on its face. He's saying that it's inconsistent once you put back in the information that the Court left out: the facts that support a ruling, based on the statute, that the code was copyrightable, also support a ruling, based on the statute, that Google's use was not fair use. The majority is simply failing to consider those facts. In other words, the Court can't just "assume for the sake of argument" that the code is copyrightable in a vacuum. They have to take into account the relevant facts of the case that support such an assumption, and consider the implications of those facts, and the relevant parts of the statute, for the fair use analysis.

lostcolony 6y ago
>> Not if it ignores additional information that is not consistent with information used in the argument That is your assumption. You assume the majority ignored that additional information. You say the court is failing to consider the facts that would indicate it copyrightable; that is -assumption- on your part. The court had the same set of facts in front of it (read: the entire body of relevant law); the majority chose to apply them to a different problem than the one Thomas wanted them to be applied to, and came to a different outcome than the one Thomas wanted. The court can totally "assume for the sake of argument"; it does not reduce the surface of the law, it does not take facts out of the equation. It just makes arguing one part of it moot.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > You assume the majority ignored that additional information. If they didn't, why is it never even mentioned in the opinion? Why does the majority not even acknowledge the fact that there are other facts involved, which do not support their conclusion? Of course any answer I might propose would also be an "assumption" to you, but I'll propose one anyway: because the majority knew quite well that if they did mention or acknowledge any of those other facts, it would be obvious to anyone reading the opinion that their argument was not cogent. My reading of many, many other Supreme Court opinions over the years tells me that that kind of thing happens all the time. At least dissenting opinions are available, though it seems like the ones that really point out fundamental flaws, like this one by Thomas, never actually get any traction. > The court can totally "assume for the sake of argument" The court can of course do whatever it pleases; there is no higher court of appeal to overrule them, and the Justices serve for life so they can simply not care what anyone else thinks of their rulings. That doesn't make it right when they twist the law, or outright ignore it, to produce rulings that are in accordance with their ideological preconceptions. Which, again, is something that happens all the time.