41–50 of 189 posts
Is it Oracle's position that all implementations of the Java APIs (or partial implementations) are illegal, unless it's specifically allowed by Oracle? That sounds ludicrous. What about unit testing libraries, for example?
This also means that Wine, GNUstep, FreeDOS, etc., are illegal, right?
What does one say of http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...
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".
This doesn't follow, sometimes language does unexpected things. E.g. a dwarf planet isn't a planet.
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".
Yeah, same thought here. I understand what he meant, and pretty much everybody on HN understands it.. but to a (potentially) non-technical juror, that just does not sound good at all. I hope that one gaffe doesn't cost Google the case.
On the one hand, RMS has said that "just using structure definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros with substantial bodies) to do that".
On the other, I imagine that somebody could get in trouble for e.g. copying the files under linux/include and providing a proprietary implementation underneath (unlikely scenario, you get the point).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm not sure if this interpretation of his words is what he meant to say. I'd argue that code that "compiles to nothing" can be protected by copyright, too, even if it is not distributed to customers. E.g., extensive documentation inside comments in the source files is definitely copyrighted. Complex build rules might be copyrightable, too, although they definitely end up in the distributed application. Therefore, it…
It's the fact they bought Sun with the intention of suing Google in order to profit from Android's success. If it was Sun suing it would different.
After Elon Musk pledged that other car manufacturers could use Tesla's patents is Larry Ellison going to wait until all cars are electric and Tesla is a minor player before buying them out and immediately turning around and suing the entire industry?