5 ms·

Google wins crucial API ruling, Oracle's case decimated

91 points by alsothings 14y ago

bluedanieru 14y ago
From the article: >Some speculated an Oracle win could have scared programmers away from Java, but that kind of ruminating is a moot point now. I'm not so sure they had to win to make that happen. Bringing this case forward in the first place was a great step in destroying the Java platform. And it wasn't even their first step, though it's gotten more attention than anything else so far. Oracle is killing Java. The metaphor of the goose that lays golden eggs is terribly apt, here.
biot 14y ago
You mean annihilated? The original meaning [0] of decimated meant a one-tenth reduction leaving 90% remaining. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)
- ig1 14y ago
  Unsurprisingly the word is used in it's current sense rather than it's archaic sense.
  - biot 14y ago
    I guess I feel compelled to call it out for two reasons. First, because the current usage is historically incorrect and I don't subscribe to the philosophy that continued incorrect use of a word makes the incorrect popular definition acceptable. Second, even with a modern interpretation, in reference to Oracle it is still incorrect. The modern sense of decimated means "a large proportion of" according to Oxford. This is vague. When talking about a pandemic taking out a large proportion of a population, 40% would be pretty damned large. Yet Oracle's case is now essentially nonexistent so merely saying "a large proportion of" is insufficient and there are far better words that convey how Oracle's case has been damaged.
    - orthecreedence 14y ago
      So are you idealistically opposed to evolution of language by repurposing of words? I've always found it an interesting debate...correctness vs popularity. In this case, the root of the word (dec...ten) makes it obvious the "correct" usage of the word as you point out (I also didn't know that that's what "decimated" means, thanks for pointing it out). So I tend to agree with you there. On the other hand, when defining language itself, all I can really come up with is "a generally agreed-upon form of communication." If enough people agree that "decimated" means "destroyed" (as I thought it did), then doesn't that in itself morph the language? Then there's the big-picture view: the language is going to morph by general consensus whether or not I agree with it.
      - biot 14y ago
        For some words, I prefer to cling to the last vestiges of the archaic definition until there's nothing left. And "decimated" is too cool of a word to, er... annihilate the original meaning.
        saraid216 14y ago
        I think a solid case could be made that 10% of the original meaning is left. If you really like the original meaning, then you should increase its usage in as originally meant so that there's a reason for dictionaries to place the original definition next to the ones that other people actually use in real life.
        biot 14y ago
        Like this? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate All those in favor of me increasing its usage, please form a line.
        Matt_Cutts 14y ago
        If it makes you feel better, I cling to the original "10% reduction" meaning of decimated too. :)
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  Interesting, in a recent study, "decimate" was found to be one of the most common targets pendants [1] :) Bottom line, languages evolve, words change, get used to it. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17762034 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17762034
  - a1k0n 14y ago
    A pendant is something that hangs from a necklace. A pedant is someone who points that out.
- bane 14y ago
  The good news is that the original meaning was in Latin and we're happily using English -- so we can repurpose it as we please.
sounds 14y ago
Good discussion going on in the other submission: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490
greesil 14y ago
Yay sanity!
krschultz 14y ago
' "The court's reliance on "interoperability" ignores the undisputed fact that Google deliberately eliminated interoperability between Android and all other Java platforms," the company said in a statement issued this afternoon. "Google's implementation intentionally fragmented Java and broke the "write once, run anywhere" promise." ' So Oracle's argument is now (or has been) 'it's copyright infrignment if you copy part of it, but not if you copy all of it!' Good luck with that.
X-Istence 14y ago
Can Oracle appeal the decision and thus make it go on longer?
- ars 14y ago
  Of course they can, the question is if they think it's financially worth it to them.
julianz 14y ago
Ars has certainly changed it's tune after claiming that Oracle won a couple of months ago... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/jury-rules-google-violated-copyright-law-google-moves-for-mistrial/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/jury-rules-google...

91 points by alsothings 14y ago

From the article: >Some speculated an Oracle win could have scared programmers away from Java, but that kind of ruminating is a moot point now. I'm not so sure they had to win to make that happen. Bringing this case forward in the first place was a great step in destroying the Java platform. And it wasn't even their first step, though it's gotten more attention than anything else so far. Oracle is killing Java. The metaphor of the goose that lays golden eggs is terribly apt, here.

biot 14y ago

You mean annihilated? The original meaning [0] of decimated meant a one-tenth reduction leaving 90% remaining. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)

ig1 14y ago
Unsurprisingly the word is used in it's current sense rather than it's archaic sense.
- biot 14y ago
  I guess I feel compelled to call it out for two reasons. First, because the current usage is historically incorrect and I don't subscribe to the philosophy that continued incorrect use of a word makes the incorrect popular definition acceptable. Second, even with a modern interpretation, in reference to Oracle it is still incorrect. The modern sense of decimated means "a large proportion of" according to Oxford. This is vague. When talking about a pandemic taking out a large proportion of a population, 40% would be pretty damned large. Yet Oracle's case is now essentially nonexistent so merely saying "a large proportion of" is insufficient and there are far better words that convey how Oracle's case has been damaged.
  - orthecreedence 14y ago
    So are you idealistically opposed to evolution of language by repurposing of words? I've always found it an interesting debate...correctness vs popularity. In this case, the root of the word (dec...ten) makes it obvious the "correct" usage of the word as you point out (I also didn't know that that's what "decimated" means, thanks for pointing it out). So I tend to agree with you there. On the other hand, when defining language itself, all I can really come up with is "a generally agreed-upon form of communication." If enough people agree that "decimated" means "destroyed" (as I thought it did), then doesn't that in itself morph the language? Then there's the big-picture view: the language is going to morph by general consensus whether or not I agree with it.
    - biot 14y ago
      For some words, I prefer to cling to the last vestiges of the archaic definition until there's nothing left. And "decimated" is too cool of a word to, er... annihilate the original meaning.
      - saraid216 14y ago
        I think a solid case could be made that 10% of the original meaning is left. If you really like the original meaning, then you should increase its usage in as originally meant so that there's a reason for dictionaries to place the original definition next to the ones that other people actually use in real life.
        biot 14y ago
        Like this? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate All those in favor of me increasing its usage, please form a line.
      - Matt_Cutts 14y ago
        If it makes you feel better, I cling to the original "10% reduction" meaning of decimated too. :)
vibrunazo 14y ago
Interesting, in a recent study, "decimate" was found to be one of the most common targets pendants [1] :) Bottom line, languages evolve, words change, get used to it. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17762034 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17762034
- a1k0n 14y ago
  A pendant is something that hangs from a necklace. A pedant is someone who points that out.
bane 14y ago
The good news is that the original meaning was in Latin and we're happily using English -- so we can repurpose it as we please.

sounds 14y ago

Good discussion going on in the other submission: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490

greesil 14y ago

Yay sanity!

krschultz 14y ago

' "The court's reliance on "interoperability" ignores the undisputed fact that Google deliberately eliminated interoperability between Android and all other Java platforms," the company said in a statement issued this afternoon. "Google's implementation intentionally fragmented Java and broke the "write once, run anywhere" promise." ' So Oracle's argument is now (or has been) 'it's copyright infrignment if you copy part of it, but not if you copy all of it!' Good luck with that.

X-Istence 14y ago

Can Oracle appeal the decision and thus make it go on longer?

ars 14y ago
Of course they can, the question is if they think it's financially worth it to them.

julianz 14y ago

Ars has certainly changed it's tune after claiming that Oracle won a couple of months ago... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/jury-rules-google-violated-copyright-law-google-moves-for-mistrial/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/jury-rules-google...