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

241–250 of 409 posts

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

#241

Post by ChrisLomont »

This is 100% inaccurate

That story leaves out significant details, and his description of the reason is wrong. He leaves out significant prior sources and reasons, to the point your statement "It was not created to help artists or whoever" is simply wrong.

Wikipedia provides a far better history with extensive sources [1]. Note for example the section "Early Developments" where they list precursors to anything in your source as having significant components of individual and author rights.

Note also in the US copyright law was started by author guilds wanting author protection, and the first federal copyright act in 1790 was about protection for authors, not for printers. This was an extension of many states laws that had passed author protections.

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

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

#242

Post by jra_samba »

nl wrote: post #192
farcical_tinpot wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Not sure where you're getting that from.

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.

Samba uses NO Windows APIs.

Please learn the difference between an API and a network protocol, else you end up looking foolish.

https://www.samba.org/ftp/tridge/misc/french_cafe.txt

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

#243

Post by Silhouette »

michaelmrose wrote: post #232
Silhouette wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proving that there's no better solution is impractical. However, the size of the copyright-backed creative industries today, by any reasonable metric I can think of, is vastly greater than the size of the creative industries built around the alternative models that have been tried noticeably often so far. That seems to include all of volunteer-based, crowd-funded, mass donation-funded, traditional patronage where som…

The problem is that proving that copyright as it stands is the cause of the prosperity of the current market is problematic. You don't and can't have an equivalent control.

Indeed, and that will hold in both directions. We can't perform an ideal experiment here.

However, we do know funding work with copyright-backed models has been widely successful for a sustained period. We also know that alternative funding models aren't precluded by copyright and that several have been tried with varying but almost always much lower degrees of success.

As 'JoshTriplett mentioned in another post, one confounding possibility is that something about how copyright works today does in fact inhibit what would otherwise be a more successful alternative model. However, so far I've yet to see any compelling examples of that, either in this discussion or elsewhere, and even then you'd need that confounding factor to cancel out multiple orders of magnitude of benefit from some other model for the most successful alternatives I've seen so far to catch up with the most successful copyright-supported work.

That is certainly possible, but until there's evidence to the contrary, it seems highly unlikely.

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

#244

Post by nl »

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.

If there is one thing I've learnt for sure from all the random forum posts used in this trial, it is that "IANAL" is a good thing to say!

Nonetheless, I don't think the clean-roomness or otherwise of an implementation has an impact on this. Otherwise someone could copy music by listening to it and replaying it.

Like you said: the copyright is on the text, pattern and structure of the code. But it doesn't matter how it was replicated.

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

#245

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #167
farcical_tinpot wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is irrelevant. There was a ridiculous notion going around a while back that if Oracle lost then the GPL would become unenforceable. The GPL does not depend on copyrightable APIs, and says nothing about what Oracle is trying to argue. Linking to a library and merely using an API are two different things. The GPL depends on the former and says the latter is neither here nor there.

> The GPL does not depend on copyrightable APIs True in terms of the GPL as such , but the FSFs interpretation that the GPL applies to works that link, even dynamically, to a GPL covered work, which it holds to be derivative works, depends absolutely on the API presented by a library being a copyright-protected element (it also probably can't stand even then without an extremely narrow interpretation of "fair use".)

[deleted]

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

#246

Post by r00fus »

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.

DMCA passed under a majority Republican House and Senate in 1998. Don't blame the Clintons alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105th_United_States_Congress

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

#247

Post by nl »

jra_samba wrote: post #242
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.

Samba uses NO Windows APIs. Please learn the difference between an API and a network protocol, else you end up looking foolish. https://www.samba.org/ftp/tridge/misc/french_cafe.txt

Please learn the difference between an API and a network protocol, else you end up looking foolish.

I don't believe that the distinction is that clear at all. Hence my comment:

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.

I think it is pretty easy to argue that the pattern of network calls needed to make calls (eg authentication) is an API.

Is a WSDL SOAP definition an API? I think most would say yes. A REST endpoint and the definition of how to use it? Why exactly is the definition of the HTTP protocol different to the definition of the REST endpoint?

IANAL, etc. Which seems important these days.

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

#248

Post by bitmapbrother »

ars wrote: post #146
bitmapbrother wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle can appeal all they want to the CAFC. Overturning a unanimous jury verdict is a herculean task.

Am I correct that they can only appeal an incorrect application of the law, but not the facts of the case? (Including the facts the Jury has decided.)

They're appealing the verdict of the jury. Good luck getting an appeals court to overturn a unanimous jury.

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

#249

Post by Silhouette »

nightski wrote: post #221
zaroth wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One could argue whether an API is a creative work however.

True, though I suggest a better alternative is that some types of work -- in particular, those necessary for effective communication or for interoperability -- should be explicitly exempt from copyright protection, regardless of any creative element.

Copyright itself is an economic trade-off, sacrificing some freedom in the interests of promoting what is considered a greater good.

In the same spirit, I would argue that the ability of different parties to communicate and work together effectively is a greater good than anything copyright incentivizes and should therefore take precedence.

Curiously, the US legal system already recognises a similar principle in the way it treats typefaces. I submit that analogous treatment is appropriate for APIs, file formats, communications protocols, and the like.

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

#250

Post by icebraining »

dragonwriter wrote: post #167
farcical_tinpot wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is irrelevant. There was a ridiculous notion going around a while back that if Oracle lost then the GPL would become unenforceable. The GPL does not depend on copyrightable APIs, and says nothing about what Oracle is trying to argue. Linking to a library and merely using an API are two different things. The GPL depends on the former and says the latter is neither here nor there.

> The GPL does not depend on copyrightable APIs True in terms of the GPL as such , but the FSFs interpretation that the GPL applies to works that link, even dynamically, to a GPL covered work, which it holds to be derivative works, depends absolutely on the API presented by a library being a copyright-protected element (it also probably can't stand even then without an extremely narrow interpretation of "fair use".)

Why? A license is just a contract, no? Can't the clauses be arbitrary?

I mean, could you have a clause in a license that said "to distribute this work, you need to wear purple shoes on Mondays"? If so, why wouldn't you just be able to say "to distribute this work, you need to distribute works that link to it under the same license", as as arbitrary condition?

Post reply on HN