4 ms·

the other side of the argument. Google seeks to Europeanize the law of the United States with respect to copyrightability Google tries to counter Oracle's ver

the other side of the argument. Google seeks to Europeanize the law of the United States with respect to copyrightability Google tries to counter Oracle's very compelling copyrightability argument, which is very much a Ninth Circuit argument, with inapposite cases from all across the United States and, which is really ridiculous, by pointing Judge Alsup to yesterday's EU Court of Justice opinion on a copyrightability issue under the laws of the European Union. Google even attached the entire ruling (though Judge Alsup could find it on the Internet) to its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. If we were talking about a policy debate and a submission to U.S. Congress, this would be a legitimate argument to make. But Judge Alsup doesn't make statutory law. He can do a lot, but he can't turn EU Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs into U.S. statutory law. Google is now wasting his time by hoping that this EU decision is so extremely persuasive that Judge Alsup will try to legislate from the bench rather than apply Ninth Circuit law -- but the latter, not the former, is his job. http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/google-seeks-to-europeanize-law-of.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/google-seeks-to-europeani...

magicalist 14y ago
That's not the other side of the argument, that's Florian's ridiculous assessment that he wrote before the Judge had even read the EU opinion and asked about it specifically in the linked list of questions. Florian's argument relies on his assumption that Alsup doesn't want to be "innovative" with the law, so therefore he must base it on Johnson, which isn't anything like the ironclad logic he's presenting it as. While he likely will want to avoid wandering into new territories, it's been 23 years since Johnson, and many cases (including the ones listed in the linked groklaw article) have touched on very similar areas of IP law. A smoking gun case on APIs is not necessary for there to be applicable precedent. Meanwhile, EU court decisions certainly do indirectly influence judgements in the US, especially on tricky areas with very little precedent. At the very least, in this case it gave Alsup another judge's perspective. The EU does have much more specific laws governing copyright here, but if you read the actual opinion or anything about it (instead of Florian's weird Fox News style mention of it), it goes into specifically why APIs should not be copyrightable and the chilling effects allowing otherwise would cause. The idea that this is a matching game, "find the most similar court case and repeat the verdict" is, again, ridiculous. Finally, stop registering new accounts just to quote Florian at us.
- icelandic 14y ago
  >especially on tricky areas with very little precedent. "very little precedent"? Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls decision. Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs. >it's been 23 years since Johnson, and many cases (including the ones listed in the linked groklaw article) have touched on very similar areas of IP law. A smoking gun case on APIs is not necessary for there to be applicable precedent. You are simply wrong on this. Why is a similar case not considered prior applicable precedent? >EU court decisions certainly do indirectly influence judgements in the US. especially on tricky areas with very little precedent. Johnson Controls v. Phoenix Control Systems I don't care if you like Florian or not. look at the facts and decide.
  - magicalist 14y ago
    > "very little precedent"? Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls decision. Yes, and Alsup just asked Google and Oracle to address the EU decision on SAS v. WPL. They've both addressed many other relevant cases. Is this what we're going on? > You are simply wrong on this. Why is a similar case not considered prior applicable precedent? That was not what I wrote. What I said was that Johnson is not the only applicable precedent and that it was ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
    - icelandic 14y ago
      Johnson Controls decision has more weight compared to the EU decision.
- loverobots 14y ago
  Meanwhile, EU court decisions certainly do indirectly influence judgements in the US, especially on tricky areas with very little precedent. I would say that logical arguments influence his decision, not "the EU court said this so..." As for being 23 years, it doesn't matter, a US Supreme court decision from the 1800's is precedent.
fpp 14y ago
The person you're quoting / runs that site you're linking to is working for Oracle / gets paid as a consultant from Oracle.
- icelandic 14y ago
  Doesn't make him wrong.

magicalist 14y ago

That's not the other side of the argument, that's Florian's ridiculous assessment that he wrote before the Judge had even read the EU opinion and asked about it specifically in the linked list of questions. Florian's argument relies on his assumption that Alsup doesn't want to be "innovative" with the law, so therefore he must base it on Johnson, which isn't anything like the ironclad logic he's presenting it as. While he likely will want to avoid wandering into new territories, it's been 23 years since Johnson, and many cases (including the ones listed in the linked groklaw article) have touched on very similar areas of IP law. A smoking gun case on APIs is not necessary for there to be applicable precedent. Meanwhile, EU court decisions certainly do indirectly influence judgements in the US, especially on tricky areas with very little precedent. At the very least, in this case it gave Alsup another judge's perspective. The EU does have much more specific laws governing copyright here, but if you read the actual opinion or anything about it (instead of Florian's weird Fox News style mention of it), it goes into specifically why APIs should not be copyrightable and the chilling effects allowing otherwise would cause. The idea that this is a matching game, "find the most similar court case and repeat the verdict" is, again, ridiculous. Finally, stop registering new accounts just to quote Florian at us.

icelandic 14y ago
>especially on tricky areas with very little precedent. "very little precedent"? Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls decision. Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs. >it's been 23 years since Johnson, and many cases (including the ones listed in the linked groklaw article) have touched on very similar areas of IP law. A smoking gun case on APIs is not necessary for there to be applicable precedent. You are simply wrong on this. Why is a similar case not considered prior applicable precedent? >EU court decisions certainly do indirectly influence judgements in the US. especially on tricky areas with very little precedent. Johnson Controls v. Phoenix Control Systems I don't care if you like Florian or not. look at the facts and decide.
- magicalist 14y ago
  > "very little precedent"? Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls decision. Yes, and Alsup just asked Google and Oracle to address the EU decision on SAS v. WPL. They've both addressed many other relevant cases. Is this what we're going on? > You are simply wrong on this. Why is a similar case not considered prior applicable precedent? That was not what I wrote. What I said was that Johnson is not the only applicable precedent and that it was ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
  - icelandic 14y ago
    Johnson Controls decision has more weight compared to the EU decision.
loverobots 14y ago
Meanwhile, EU court decisions certainly do indirectly influence judgements in the US, especially on tricky areas with very little precedent. I would say that logical arguments influence his decision, not "the EU court said this so..." As for being 23 years, it doesn't matter, a US Supreme court decision from the 1800's is precedent.

fpp 14y ago

The person you're quoting / runs that site you're linking to is working for Oracle / gets paid as a consultant from Oracle.

icelandic 14y ago
Doesn't make him wrong.