Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by glibgil » Fri, May 27, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

mratzloff wrote: post #365

glibgil wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

Vagrant works with many other VMs as of version 1.1. Oracle didn't create VirtualBox, they bought it. I avoid using it, like I avoid depending on any Oracle-owned software. Especially if it means I would be obligated to thank them for it.

Oracle paid for all the work done on VirtualBox. They paid for the past work and they pay for current work. You can dismiss it as something they bought, but that doesn't address that they paid for all the past work done on it when they bought it. It doesn't address that they pay to maintain and innovate on it. Everyone knows vagrant works with other VMs. Almost everyone uses VirtualBox. You are not obligated to thank them, but you are an ingrate if you do use it and don't have an attitude of thankfulness that it works well for you (if that is the case). I mean, if a person does that they really are ungrateful. What else do they complain about? Do I hate working with them? Probably. Attitude and acknowledgement of the way things actually work and who pays for them is a big part of being a nice person

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

#382

Post by Zigurd » Fri, May 27, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #311

mikekchar wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is right that the author of a creative work get protection for having conceived that work and reduced it to tangible form. This is incorrect (and I didn't grow up in the digital age, unless you call 4 function calculators the "digital age"). There is no such right. It is not a human right, nor is it something that you are intrinsically entitled to have. Copyright is something that is endowed upon you by the gove…

> There is no such right. It is not a human right, nor is it something that you are intrinsically entitled to have. I disagree with that. To the extent that any rights are "natural" or "human" (as opposed to all rights being creations of the government), I think copyright is entitled to that status more so than say rights in land. My back yard is something that was here before I was born and will be here after I die.…

For one, it's amusing to see you lean on naturalness of rights, and for another, the term "intellectual property" is a relative novelty, meant to equate the output of the intellect with goods and land, which is resembles not at all.

So, while there is a case for limited (a word which should have meaning) government-granted monopolies on products of the mind, they just don't have the same standing as rights which, if not natural to being a human, have a longer tradition than modern national governments. The word "natural" has meaning at least in terms of precedence, if not bloody in tooth and claw nature itself.

In other words, we could claim and defend a right to our lives and property and freedom to move about long before we could claim such a right to our thoughts as recorded somehow. We had to wait for government granted monopolies for the latter.

Finally, government itself holds copyright away from other rights. It's an experiment. It doesn't claim to be protecting such a right as a basis for legitimacy, but granting a limited protection. It's the difference between acquiring legitimacy and using it.

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

#383

Post by Zenith77 » Fri, May 27, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

zardeh wrote: post #307

Zenith77 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You do realize how this case got to the court it's in, right?

So yes, it most definitely isn't about copying code.

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

#384

Post by icebraining » Fri, May 27, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #374

icebraining wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Why? A license is just a contract, no? Can't the clauses be arbitrary? You don't need to abide by a copyright license if you aren't doing anything for which permission of the copyright holder is required in the law -- a copyright license is only needed to do things which would otherwise be prohibitd as within the exclusive purview of the copyright owner. As the GPL isn't a sale contract that you must agree to as a…

The assertion by the FSF that particular uses of GPL-licensed software are constrained by the license

Ah, that's what I was missing. When did they assert that the use by itself (with no redistribution) is constrained by the GPL? That seems to go directly against their FAQ:

  If I only make copies of a GPL-covered program and run them, without distributing or
  conveying them to others, what does the license require of me?

  Nothing. The GPL does not place any conditions on this activity.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoDistributionRe...

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

#385

Post by gnaritas » Fri, May 27, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #370

gnaritas wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US legislative process lives and dies on building alliances and horse-trading. It used to, back in the day. That hasn't been the case for a while in today's extremely partisan environment where compromise is now a dirty word and presidential support for something makes it less likely to pass given the hostile congress that will remain even after Clinton wins.

> today's extremely partisan environment That's all a big show on wedge issues. On topics that matter to people with money (bankruptcy laws, banking laws etc), it's just business as usual. The DMCA was passed in a similarly "partisan" environment. Don't believe the hype.

It isn't business as usual, this is the most unproductive congress in modern history, it's not hype, it's reality. Anecdotes about oh some things got through don't change the reality that many things that should and used to no longer can without absurd posturing battles and attempted and real shutdowns of the government.

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

#386

Post by nitrogen » Fri, May 27, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

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.

Oracle claimed that their copyright covered "Sequence, Structure, and Organization."

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

#387

Post by pcwalton » Fri, May 27, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #310

dmix wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

> 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.

You know, I've never heard this position articulated before, but it seems incredibly, and obviously reasonable. To me, the balanced position of "enforce copyright vigorously when significant value is at stake, but don't harm consumers by obsessively trying to prevent minor infringements" seems the most fair position.

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

#388

Post by monocasa » Fri, May 27, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

true_religion wrote: post #304

zaroth wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That basically used to be true, but this trial was over the "sequence, structure, and organization" of the API.

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

#389

Post by dang » Fri, May 27, 2016, 7:27 PM UTC

ChrisLomont wrote: post #378

dang wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11782568 and marked it off-topic.

It was a reply to DannyBee's post claiming copyright "was not created to help artists or whoever". It starts with "This is 100% inaccurate" which is why I began this the same way. I note others have since reposted the same links in reply to DannyBee for the same reason. How it is off topic since it directly addresses that claim? Did it get detached from the parent, removing context?

It's off-topic because it turned into a tedious back-and-forth in which you became increasingly uncivil. You've done that repeatedly in arguments on HN. Please don't do that.

When comments get aggressive, good conversation flees the room. Such spats also go inevitably off-topic, since how-right-I-am-and-how-wrong-you-are is not a topic.

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

#390

Post by rayiner » Fri, May 27, 2016, 7:37 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #382

rayiner wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no such right. It is not a human right, nor is it something that you are intrinsically entitled to have. I disagree with that. To the extent that any rights are "natural" or "human" (as opposed to all rights being creations of the government), I think copyright is entitled to that status more so than say rights in land. My back yard is something that was here before I was born and will be here after I die.…

For one, it's amusing to see you lean on naturalness of rights, and for another, the term "intellectual property" is a relative novelty, meant to equate the output of the intellect with goods and land, which is resembles not at all. So, while there is a case for limited (a word which should have meaning) government-granted monopolies on products of the mind, they just don't have the same standing as rights which, if…

I don't think natural rights exist. I'm just accepting OP's premise in order to question why your right to something you didn't create should be more fundamental than your right to something you did create.