Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 189 posts

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#11

Post by scotty79 »

d_j_b wrote: post #4

"For me, declaring code is not code," Page said. This sentence sounds pretty odd to me. What does Larry Page mean?

I think he means that the code that doesn't do anything, just describes the interface between two software components is not a code (that you should be prevented from copying) because of its one to one equivalence with the interface.

Describing interface with words is exactly the same as declaring it with code. So such code is nothing more or less than verbal description of the interface (or any other description of it using any other syntax).

Not sure if that helps. If you can copyright interface, or just algorithms. Unless Java interface was specifically made free and open by Sun then it's really clear cut case.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#12

Post by arcatek »

calsy wrote: post #9

'The lawsuit began when Oracle sued Google in 2010 over its use of 37 Java APIs, which Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems. In 2012', am I crazy or is this just a misprint? Oracle sued Google in 2010 before they acquired Sun Microsystems?

They purchased Sun in 2010, and sued Google right after.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#13

Post by Morgawr »

calsy wrote: post #9

'The lawsuit began when Oracle sued Google in 2010 over its use of 37 Java APIs, which Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems. In 2012', am I crazy or is this just a misprint? Oracle sued Google in 2010 before they acquired Sun Microsystems?

There's a period between those sentences. The "In 2012..." is related to "...a judge ruled that APIs can't be copyrighted at all".

I don't know when Oracle bought Sun (didn't look it up), but this is not what the sentence(s) is(are) implying.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#14

Post by Morgawr »

ricksplat wrote: post #2

Page testified for about a half-hour, answering a lightning-fast round of accusatory questions from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks It really irks me that some of these lawyers, aside from having to do their job feel they have to be dicks about it too.

How are they "being dicks"? It's their job, they have to ask questions and find cracks within the legal system to prove their point. That's literally their job, no more, no less.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#15

Post by ricksplat »

sotirisk wrote: post #6
ricksplat wrote: post #2

Page testified for about a half-hour, answering a lightning-fast round of accusatory questions from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks It really irks me that some of these lawyers, aside from having to do their job feel they have to be dicks about it too.

Well in the court a lot of theatrics are in play because of their effect on certain questions/answers

Yeah I guess - but for me it seems like the focus should be on the facts rather than theatrics. That said I have sat on a jury where the performance of the prosecuter played a pivotal role in papering over some of the mistakes in the investigation. But the guy was a perfect gentleman at all times. Innocent until proven guilty.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#16

Post by Tomte »

Maarten88 wrote: post #8
d_j_b wrote: post #4

"For me, declaring code is not code," Page said. This sentence sounds pretty odd to me. What does Larry Page mean?

I think he means header files compile to nothing, they do not end up as actual computer instructions. They only serve to help programs call the actual implementations (which he'll see as the real code) correctly.

But declarations can have an effect on the instructions generated.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#17

Post by mamon »

sotirisk wrote: post #6
ricksplat wrote: post #2

Page testified for about a half-hour, answering a lightning-fast round of accusatory questions from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks It really irks me that some of these lawyers, aside from having to do their job feel they have to be dicks about it too.

Well in the court a lot of theatrics are in play because of their effect on certain questions/answers

Which is why I am against trials with jury. Professional judges are much less likely to fall for lawyer's "bullshiting skill".

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#18

Post by Sharlin »

ricksplat wrote: post #5
oneloop wrote: post #3

Oooooo shit. Isn't this phrase horrible? Don't get me wrong, I think suing over checkRange is ludicrous... but doesn't saying "declaring code isn't code" terrible? He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words. Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE".

"declaring code" means headers, or in the case of Java function specification/prototypes, right? As in "declarations". I think it's technical language twisted through legalese.

Yep. The argument is that API specifications are not code, and reimplementing an API based on specifications is not a copyright infringement. It should not matter whether the specs are written in a natural language or a more formal one. Specs are more like ideas, and ideas cannot be copyrighted (the specification document itself could constitute a copyrighted work, though!)

The problem is that to reimplement the spec in this case, you do have to copy the formal declarations verbatim. Whether or not those "sentences" are protected, and pass the threshold of originality [1], is what is at stake here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#20

Post by simonh »

mamon wrote: post #17
sotirisk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in the court a lot of theatrics are in play because of their effect on certain questions/answers

Which is why I am against trials with jury. Professional judges are much less likely to fall for lawyer's "bullshiting skill".

Then judges just become targets for corruption, leverage and political capture.
Post reply on HN