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

Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 409 posts

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#221

Post by nightski »

zaroth wrote: post #203
Natanael_L wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a sufficient answer. The claim assumes that copyright and patents are proven to be beneficial, measurably better than the prior situation. Are they? If so, how? Not to mention, is there any proof there's no better solution?

I think you're moving the goalposts quite a bit here! The original assertion does not assume that the current implementation and interpretation of copyright law is, as you say, "proven to be beneficial, measurably better than the prior situation." The complaint was that "that's not how facts work" but the statement in question was in fact verifiable. If you want to provide proof of a better solution, go for it. Proof…

One could argue whether an API is a creative work however. Are you copyrighting the syntax or the semantics? If it is the semantics, then you are essentially copyrighting a mathematical entity (a type declaration). Are we allowed to copyright mathematics at this point?

Forever unto me, the tuple (Int, Int) shall be mine.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#222

Post by toyg »

guelo wrote: post #172
grellas wrote: post #120

Law evolves and the law of copyright in particular is ripe for "disruption" - and I say this not as one who opposes the idea of copyright but, on the contrary, as one who strongly supports it. It is right that the author of a creative work get protection for having conceived that work and reduced it to tangible form. Developers do this all the time with their code. So too do many, many others. Many today disagree wit…

> The Bono law may have slipped through Congress with nary a dissent in its day but this will not happen again, whatever the lobbying power of Disney and others. Copyright maximalists realizing this have moved to circumvent democracy globally by enshrining their most draconian laws into "free trade" treaties. These treaties have the proven ability to overturn the will of national democratic bodies and are almost impo…

That used to be the case, but they're not that easy to impose these days. Abuses have been so blatant, and treaties written in such poor manner, that public opinion and media are now "critical by default" of any new treaty. This is particularly true in Europe.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#224

Post by toyg »

gohrt wrote: post #191
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Bono law may have slipped through Congress with nary a dissent in its day but this will not happen again, whatever the lobbying power of Disney and others. What makes you think so? This is one of my greatest fears of another Clinton presidency.

You fear that a Clinton presidency will make Congress pass bad laws?

The Clintons are famously close to Hollywood and have been quite bad for anti-copyright causes. One word: DMCA.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#225

Post by xenihn »

farcical_tinpot wrote: post #200
xenihn wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's strengthening her personal brand and potentially gaining access to new clients for future work. I have absolutely no problem with her asking for donations, but let's not be disingenuous :)

Ahhhh, yes, the 'giving exposure' argument.

Did you somehow misconstrue my post as an argument that she should not be paid?

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#226

Post by vesinisa »

kstrauser wrote: post #113
Oletros wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His level of insanity and hatred is beyond belief

No. He's a paid consultant to Oracle and Microsoft (see: http://www.businessinsider.com/oracle-to-google-which-blogge... ) and his employers get their money's worth.

He still seems like a sociopath. Taking money to poison communities does not glorify it.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#227

Post by xenihn »

Throwaway23412 wrote: post #204
xenihn wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's strengthening her personal brand and potentially gaining access to new clients for future work. I have absolutely no problem with her asking for donations, but let's not be disingenuous :)

This is the first time I've seen "do it for the exposure" in the wild ( http://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure ). And you even called the other person disingenuous (albeit in jest). I'm impressed.

Looks like I missed the part where someone else was making money off her reporting and refusing to pay her, do you happen to have a link?

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#228

Post by jerf »

toyg wrote: post #224
gohrt wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You fear that a Clinton presidency will make Congress pass bad laws?

The Clintons are famously close to Hollywood and have been quite bad for anti-copyright causes. One word: DMCA.

The law would come out of Congress. I have no compelling reason to believe at this time that any candidate for this Presidential election wouldn't just sign it and move on with life. (I can read tea leaves and hypothesize as well as anyone else, but I have no real facts that leads me to believe otherwise.) If that is the case, there's very little advantage to the industry getting close to the President; all they can do is sign it, not sign it extra hard or something. Regardless I also find it unlikely that any candidate would burn political capital to push through extra hard, not that it would be necessary anyhow.

The most likely way this is going to go down is Congress is going to pass the extension again and it's going to go to the Supreme Court. I would consider the probability of any other outcome pretty low.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#229

Post by wtallis »

glibgil wrote: post #44
seangrant wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When's the last time Oracle has built "cool stuff"?

April 28th, 2016 according to vagrant on my Mac https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Changelog At least I think it is pretty cool (and very gracious of Oracle)

You're not exactly setting the bar very high for Oracle. VirtualBox was mostly GPL'd before its developer was bought by Sun, which was later bought by Oracle. Saying that it's "very gracious" of Oracle to not kill a successful project or fire all its developers makes it sound like you've been brainwashed under an oppressive tyranny.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#230

Post by curt15 »

rayiner wrote: post #198
nl wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samba is API compatible with Windows file server. Unless you are arguing that network protocol compatibility is a different thing? It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap, since Samba relies on re implementing the same behavior as a Windows file server.

Copyright doesn't care about the software's behavior, just the text and structure of the code. Samba implemented CIFS without looking at or copying any Microsoft code.

Reverse engineering is not a defense against infringement if the subject of reverse engineering is copyright-protected.
Post reply on HN