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

301–310 of 409 posts

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

#301

Post by [deleted] »

mancerayder wrote: post #296
quadrangle wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We, the US public, out of the goodness of our hearts and wanting to foster art" I was not part of that, and neither was I part of some minority complaining while the majority did this. I don't think this ever happened. Just because there's a pretense of democracy doesn't mean the general public is actually to blame for everything.

I also had to scratch my head at that, despite an otherwise nicely written comment. It's not like copyright law is something Presidential candidates run on. I think the author is overstating his case with regards to public perceptions. The first problem with public perceptions is, when laws are forged in the court room (or codified in treaties), they're essentially happening removed from public scrutiny. Not everyone…

[deleted]

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

#302

Post by jonathankoren »

deciplex wrote: post #263
brianwawok wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like when windows extended Java then started adding incompatibile methods to the windows Java extension that would be on all windows computers? Or maybe when office used a hidden format to store files so no one could share files without buying a license? They were not great times at all...

Was the hold Office format hidden? It was delightfully obtuse and even obfuscated IMO, no doubt about that, but not impenetrable, and you can find the docs describing the file format on Microsoft's site now . Could you not get them 10-15 years ago?

Nope. The formats were completely undocumented. Nothing outside of Microsoft could properly import the formats. Sure things tried, but they inevitably always failed in rather dramatic ways.

Joel on Software had article about the file formats several years ago. Apparently big chunks of the files are basically just memdumps. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html

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

#303

Post by wbillingsley »

Is it just me, or is this result the worst of both worlds (for the you-and-me's of the world, rather than billion dollar corporates)?

Had APIs been found not to be copyrightable, that would have been great and opened up the development ecosystem for us to use and adapt each other's APIs.

Had it been clear that no this sort of thing wasn't allowed then small developers would have had protection that they could publish their APIs without fear of a deep-pocketed competitor saying "thanks, we're going to muscle you out of the market, using your own design to do it, and ignoring any of that GPL nonsense you've licensed it licensed under, we're just having your API as our own thanks". Not an open world, but at least everyone would be on a level field.

But a "fair use" finding of fact sets no precedent for anything else, gives no protection for the ordinary developer, and essentially means "it turns out you can do this if you're big enough to afford to pay high-tier lawyers for six years". (ie, BigCorp can copy APIs with impunity, but you can't)

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

#304

Post by true_religion »

zaroth wrote: post #214
rayiner wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is such a key point and yet also quite confusing. Obviously copyright is not patents. Copyright is about preventing literal copying of someone's creation. So.., if you implement an API in a different programming language, such that the text and structure is different, and yet the function remains the same... then have you not infringed any copyright?

Copyright is about literal reuse of someones functional product, not about reuse of the abstract ideas that make up it.

To me an API, is just a formalization of declaring your intention to implement a particular functionality.

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

#305

Post by pithic »

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…

When a casual passer-by records, copies, and disseminates, no physical aggression is committed. The enforcement of copyright law depends on a third-party initiating a threat of force against property, freedom, and life to dissuade such actions.

Copying is non-violent, whereas preventing it requires violence. And where does copying end, and thought begin? If I examine source code, or lyrics, or a short story, reflect on them, talk about them, and use what I have gleaned, haven't I copied them to some degree?

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

#306

Post by glibgil »

wtallis wrote: post #300
glibgil wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a special kind of ingrate. Oracle spends a great deal of its treasure on open source software. They maintain and innovate on those projects at great cost to themselves. You have no leg to stand on. Oracle is doing a nice thing for the engineering community. They don't have to, but they do. It is nice of them. You are being rude

> "They maintain and innovate on those projects at great cost to themselves." Net cost? Most certainly not. That's not how Oracle works at all. Saying that they aren't entirely opposed to participating in mutually beneficial arrangements is still setting the bar pretty damn low and is not a distinction worthy of any praise.

That's not how favors work. When someone does something nice for the engineering community you use it with gratitude (if you do use it). Oracle makes cool software. It doesn't cost anything to aknowledge it, but it sure makes you look like an ass to argue that they don't. So many people use vagrant right now and it just works because of VirtualBox. That's cool. No bar to clear. It's just nice that Oracle paid for that

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

#307

Post by zardeh »

Zenith77 wrote: post #270
Cyph0n wrote: post #10

Great news! This is a win for us software devs :) I'd like to note that Ars Technica's coverage of the trial has been excellent throughout.

No it's not. It effectively means I can copy code without respect to the original author's rights, slap a new license on it, and call it a day. As long as it's under the guise of some higher ideal of software development -- which we know from historical accounts this was definitely not the case.

What?

This case had literally nothing to do with copying code.

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

#308

Post by jhh »

anarres wrote: post #284
jhh wrote: post #223

What I don't understand about this: Why didn't Google/Android use Java under the Open Source license under which it has been provided. Wouldn't that have saved all the trouble?

When Google started Android (2005ish, iirc), OpenJDK didn't exist yet.

Well that's a simple and convincing answer. Thanks.

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

#310

Post by rayiner »

dmix wrote: post #260
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…

Well meaning laws that are in practice nearly impossible to meaningfully enforce should not exist - from the beginning as well as when then this reality kicks in. Copyright shares many traits with the war on drugs. They were implemented and then continue to stick around way too long in an archaic non-working state - because they were well meaning. But making sure it will actually have the intended effect is not a req…

> Well meaning laws that are in practice nearly impossible to meaningfully enforce should not exist - from the beginning as well as when then this reality kicks in. Copyright shares many traits with the war on drugs.

Not really, and this is where I think copyright owners have gone off the reservation with their enforcement strategy. The point of copyright isn't to keep kids from pirating a few songs, just like the point of property right's isn't to keep kids from walking across your lawn. That's not what's going to destroy the value of your property. The point of copyright is to force Netflix and Amazon Prime and Youtube to bargain with you instead of just ripping you off. And that's not hard to enforce.

Post reply on HN