4 ms·

Reading the ruling is fantastic. The judge basically puts a CS 101 chapter in to explain some of the basics of Java. I laughed when he used the variable name '

Reading the ruling is fantastic. The judge basically puts a CS 101 chapter in to explain some of the basics of Java. I laughed when he used the variable name 'Foo' as an example. This was one argument that I haven't seen before: "This brings us to the application programming interface. When Java was first introduced in 1996, the API included eight packages of pre-written programs. At least three of these packages were “core” packages, according to Sun, fundamental to being able to use the Java language at all. These packages were java.lang, java.io, and java.util. As a practical matter, anyone free to use the language itself (as Oracle concedes all are), must also use the three core packages in order to make any worthwhile use of the language. Contrary to Oracle, there is no bright line between the language and the API."

gruseom 14y ago
there is no bright line between the language and the API This is actually a deep observation about the relationship between languages and libraries: the line between them is fluid and to some extent just a convention. How astonishing that the judge of a lawsuit would show this level of technical understanding. Let's hope he has succeeded in appeal-proofing the ruling.
- marshray 14y ago
  We could even call it "introspection".
- Natsu 14y ago
  > How astonishing that the judge of a lawsuit would show this level of technical understanding. It's been reported that he's done programming before. I had very high hopes based on that and the extensive research he did in preparing for this ruling. He asked for several rounds of briefings and spent a considerable amount of time reaching this decision. So in a sense it's not that astonishing: he worked really hard to arrive at the correct answer. I'm just glad they got such a capable judge.
  - gruseom 14y ago
    It's been reported that he's done programming before. Of course; that's the astonishing part. This was more than a capable judge - this was a capable judge with deep intuition for the domain. You don't get that by cramming from scratch. For once, we software people got a lucky break in the courts. If only this guy could be set on a patent troll case.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Think about this for a second. What I heard the judge saying is basically this (and something judges have repeatedly said): Copyright is not a barrier to competition with functionally equivalent products, nor is it a barrier to interoperability of functional software. WINE is not a derivative work of Windows, for example.... Instead copyright (at least in the US) only protects creative expression to the extent it can be separated from function. This means it protects source code in kind of funny ways and with strange boundaries which haven't been as fleshed out as much as one might think. This is important. It places a lot of the more extremist rhetoric about what the GPL prohibits in doubt too, since by this logic steps that are minimally necessary to interop with a piece of software can never, by themselves, rise to the level of copyright infringement.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I really liked that he added the last bit. It explicitly denied the theory that the language elements that were 'code' in the core packages were part of the same work (language) that is parsed by the lexical analyzer. This is a critically important element of language design.
mtgx 14y ago
Oracle should really save themselves the embarrassment and admit the law is not on their side, and they are being just way too greedy trying to get Google to pay for this. But they'll probably take it further anyway...
- chii 14y ago
  i suspect they've already sunk in enough effort - i m sure they aint' just gonna give up. I just hope that when they do appeal, that they don't somehow manage to get a judge that is incapable of understanding the technical subtlties involved, and ruin everything.

gruseom 14y ago

there is no bright line between the language and the API This is actually a deep observation about the relationship between languages and libraries: the line between them is fluid and to some extent just a convention. How astonishing that the judge of a lawsuit would show this level of technical understanding. Let's hope he has succeeded in appeal-proofing the ruling.

marshray 14y ago
We could even call it "introspection".
Natsu 14y ago
> How astonishing that the judge of a lawsuit would show this level of technical understanding. It's been reported that he's done programming before. I had very high hopes based on that and the extensive research he did in preparing for this ruling. He asked for several rounds of briefings and spent a considerable amount of time reaching this decision. So in a sense it's not that astonishing: he worked really hard to arrive at the correct answer. I'm just glad they got such a capable judge.
- gruseom 14y ago
  It's been reported that he's done programming before. Of course; that's the astonishing part. This was more than a capable judge - this was a capable judge with deep intuition for the domain. You don't get that by cramming from scratch. For once, we software people got a lucky break in the courts. If only this guy could be set on a patent troll case.
einhverfr 14y ago
Think about this for a second. What I heard the judge saying is basically this (and something judges have repeatedly said): Copyright is not a barrier to competition with functionally equivalent products, nor is it a barrier to interoperability of functional software. WINE is not a derivative work of Windows, for example.... Instead copyright (at least in the US) only protects creative expression to the extent it can be separated from function. This means it protects source code in kind of funny ways and with strange boundaries which haven't been as fleshed out as much as one might think. This is important. It places a lot of the more extremist rhetoric about what the GPL prohibits in doubt too, since by this logic steps that are minimally necessary to interop with a piece of software can never, by themselves, rise to the level of copyright infringement.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I really liked that he added the last bit. It explicitly denied the theory that the language elements that were 'code' in the core packages were part of the same work (language) that is parsed by the lexical analyzer. This is a critically important element of language design.

mtgx 14y ago

Oracle should really save themselves the embarrassment and admit the law is not on their side, and they are being just way too greedy trying to get Google to pay for this. But they'll probably take it further anyway...

chii 14y ago
i suspect they've already sunk in enough effort - i m sure they aint' just gonna give up. I just hope that when they do appeal, that they don't somehow manage to get a judge that is incapable of understanding the technical subtlties involved, and ruin everything.