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

71–80 of 189 posts

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

#71

Post by reflexer »

Sharlin wrote: post #18
ricksplat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

This is incorrect technically. Oracle has already won API copyrightability claim. http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-denies-google-appe...

The trial now is about Google's "fair use" of those APIs.

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

#72

Post by punctilio »

return0 wrote: post #57
Aleman360 wrote: post #32

Not sure if I agree. I find that coming up with good interfaces is often more of a creative challenge than the implementation. API's are worthy of some sort of protection since ease of use is a definite competitive advantage. Also, you can easily screw your perf with bad interfaces (especially in C++). E.g., not templatizing, requiring extra allocations, type impedance mismatches, vtable bloat, etc. The interface cer…

Are APIs/interfaces patentable?

Patents have been granted on claims that essentially cover an API. I think it would be harder to get such patents issued today than 10 years ago though.

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

#73

Post by lmm »

simonh wrote: post #20
mamon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but there are ways around that.

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

#74

Post by nunobrito »

onion2k wrote: post #53
forrestthewoods wrote: post #21

The more I read about this case the more I think Oracle is right. And the more I think most people, HN readers included, are grossly misinformed. In the last big thread I asked if anyone could provide concrete examples of terrible things that would happen if Oracle won. I didn't get a good response but the comment was buried. My question stands if anyone has a good answer. I'm very open to discussion here.

The simplest way to mitigate the risk that you might be sued if your code is too similar to someone else's code is not to share it openly in the first place. If Oracle win then every large corporation will have to ask the question "Can we release our code? Do we know it's all ours and not something a developer took from a closed project[1]?". Many will choose to not to because the risk is too high. [1] Knowingly or o…

Safety by obscurity might not be a magic bullet. I'd still be able to tell much just from the compiled binaries.

For example, I wouldn't detect your code snippets from stackoverflow but would be capable of creating a very comprehensive list of third-party dependencies you are using.

There are companies completely dedicated to the software originality topic: http://triplecheck.net/

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

#75

Post by jinst8gmi »

keypusher wrote: post #60
metafunctor wrote: post #36

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?

Would this also apply to projects like OpenJDK, that are alternative JVM implementations? If so, why did Oracle never go after them?

OpenJDK is the official reference implementation of the JVM, so that would be a little silly...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK

http://openjdk.java.net/faq/

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

#76

Post by tome »

philh wrote: post #43
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".

> 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.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle

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

#77

Post by dpark »

trhway wrote: post #61
statictype wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but it seems like it would set the precedent that you cannot do clean room implementations that are legal. That would, for example, prevent every browser after Netscape from building javascript into their own browser. It might have prevented Mono from existing. It would have prevented Atom and Sublime from being able to use Textmate syntax files. Are those bad things? I believe they are.

>IANAL but it seems like it would set the precedent that you cannot do clean room implementations that are legal. the practice that interfaces are copyrightable seems to has been in place for quite some time. AMD couldn't make Pentium socket compatible CPU. We have LGPL for the same reason. The miracle of IBM compatible BIOS may be attributed only to accidental benevolence of IBM :) Google is on the receiving end rig…

AMD did make Pentium-socket-compatible CPUs. Also, I would imagine that Socket 5/7 were protected with a patent, not copyright.

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

#78

Post by april1stislame »

philh wrote: post #43
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".

> 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.

Yes, because dwarf persons aren't persons, right?

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

#79

Post by amelius »

metafunctor wrote: post #36

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?

Well, even though I don't like Oracle's standpoint here, I still feel that often the design of an API is much more work than the implementation of it. Implementing something is often just doing "the logical thing", whereas designing an API requires a lot of trial and error, and planning. An API describes in a way the greater design of the system (how things connect together), whereas an implementation is just filling in of the details.

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

#80

Post by rootlocus »

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 isn't executed. It's an interface. Its sole purpose is to make sure component A can communicate with component B. It's a protocol.
Post reply on HN