nodamage

30 ms·

301.
by nodamage 6y ago
> My reading is that the mere use of an API is a method of practice. The problem is Google didn't merely use the API, it reproduced the API entirely and necessarily copied several thousand lines of code in the process. Code itself i
302.
by nodamage 6y ago
Perhaps I should not have used the recipe analogy as it might be causing unnecessary confusion. But I don't think the situations are all that similar. If an individual recipe is non-copyrightable because it describes a "process, p
303.
by nodamage 6y ago
Can you clarify how you think Baker applies here? The underlying point from that case is that an accounting method is an idea and copyright protection does not extend to ideas, only specific expressions of that idea. I'm not sure the
304.
by nodamage 6y ago
You might be right. It seems like Google's most realistic path to victory here will be based on arguing over the legal technicalities related to the standard of review. I wonder if they win on that front if the Court will be able to do
305.
by nodamage 6y ago
Perhaps it shouldn't, but under current law it probably would be. Justice Roberts asked a very similar question during the hearing: Roberts: Let's say someone copies the headings in your brief and they copy the organization in yo
306.
by nodamage 6y ago
While that might be true, it's not really relevant to the underlying point, which is the selection and arrangement of non-copyrightable material can result in a copyrightable work. You can replace recipes with any other example if you&
307.
by nodamage 6y ago
I'm not sure why so many people here seem to be surprised by this, I got the exact same impression from the hearing. The problem for Google on the copyrightability front is that "compilations" of non-copyrightable items can b
308.
by nodamage 6y ago
The problem for Google is that "compilations" in copyright law may be considered copyrightable even if the underlying data being compiled is not. The legal requirement is that the data needs to be "selected, coordinated, or a
309.
by nodamage 6y ago
It's not uncommon for Android malware to exploit system vulnerabilities to break out of the sandbox. - Agent Smith abused an installation vulnerability in order to inject malicious code into other installed APKs on the device. ( https:
310.
by nodamage 6y ago
Contrary to (apparently) popular belief, simply matching the standard industry rate is not legally considered price fixing, which requires active agreement between competitors.
311.
by nodamage 6y ago
Steam set a 30% rate years before the App Store or Play Store even existed, and the same rate is used across the industry in both console stores and physical stores. Accusing Apple and Google of colluding on pricing requires an enormous m
312.
by nodamage 6y ago
This is quite incorrect. Epic can already demonstrate financial harm due to the 30% fee that Apple has been collecting. They did not also need to break the agreement in order to bring the lawsuit. The judge literally recommended they cure t
313.
by nodamage 6y ago
Why do you think that case is relevant to this discussion? The only issue that has been resolved in that case so far is a question about standing. The actual anti-trust questions are still unresolved.
314.
by nodamage 6y ago
> But, if you are only willing to do a small amount of research of your own, then the case that I would recommend reading is "Hayden Publishing Co. v. Cox Broadcasting Corp", as well as "Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS&quot
315.
by nodamage 6y ago
Sure, the hearing yesterday was about the preliminary injunction. But Epic's arguments have been made in detail in their extensive filings with the court.
316.
by nodamage 6y ago
My observation extends beyond the preliminary injunction itself which was always going to be a long shot. Epic's entire case depends on being able to successfully plead a single-brand market consisting of only iOS devices. Yes, you are
317.
by nodamage 6y ago
Except Epic's theory of the case is not that Apple has a monopoly over smartphones , rather they have a monopoly over distribution of apps on iOS devices . Which would have been true back in 2008 or 2009 as well. If Epic wins their c
318.
by nodamage 6y ago
I mean, it kind of is. If Epic's theory is correct and they win their case, that essentially implies that the "walled garden" approach is illegal and will prohibit hardware manufacturers from tightly controlling what software
319.
by nodamage 6y ago
The underlying point is that it doesn't really matter (from a legal perspective) whether smartphones are more like PCs or game consoles when answering the question of whether it should be legal to sell "walled garden" devices
320.
by nodamage 6y ago
Let me clarify: 1. Epic spent the first hour of the hearing arguing that the relevant antitrust market was the "iOS app distribution" market. The judge pushed back hard on this because there were alternative distribution channels
321.
by nodamage 6y ago
Going beyond that, even if it is superior, why should the game console model be illegal ?
322.
by nodamage 6y ago
This hearing went really, really poorly for Epic. The judge repeatedly told Epic's lawyers she wasn't particularly persuaded by their arguments with regards to several key aspects of their case. Epic's case hinges on being ab
323.
by nodamage 6y ago
Except Epic has specifically stated they don't want a jury trial. Also, I'm not sure why you think Apple v. Pepper is relevant here?
324.
by nodamage 6y ago
The reason the comparison is reasonable is because console manufacturers exert the same level of control over their platforms that Apple does, even when a physical copy of a game is sold in a store. The manufacturer still gets to collect th
325.
by nodamage 6y ago
> The case is going to a jury trial. Unless something has changed, we don't actually know that yet. Epic specifically requested a bench trial and Apple has until 5pm today to decide whether they want a jury or not.
326.
by nodamage 6y ago
The reason it matters is because Epic's entire theory of the case involves Apple having a "monopoly" over the specific sub-market of "iOS app distribution". They've intentionally defined this market very narrow
327.
by nodamage 6y ago
The "terms" in this context are not referring to contractual terms between Kodak and the ISOs, they are the conditions under which Kodak customers could obtain service and repair parts for the copiers they originally purchased. In
328.
by nodamage 6y ago
> - if Apple wins vs Epic then Google and Microsoft have precedent and they can lock down their platforms , previous legal precedent was with IE bundling Bundling IE with Windows was never established to be illegal in the United States,
329.
by nodamage 6y ago
Sounds like you're reaching for excuses to dismiss the obvious malware problem on Android. No one is advocating banning power tools. There are plenty of power tools (Android devices) out there for people who want to buy them. What you&
330.
by nodamage 6y ago
The original analogy is pretty disingenuous and conveniently ignores a crucial detail: in the cereal example Kroger (presumably) still gets paid when the discounted box of cereal is sold. Whereas what they're asking for is the equivale

More ›