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

Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 344 posts

Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

#171

Post by helthanatos »

Spivak wrote: post #19

Okay, either I'm crazy or everyone else is. Assuming the court isn't trying to set a new precedent with regards to software it seems like Oracle should have easily won this case. There is an argument to be made that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable but surely it's not fair use -- Google's use of Java doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria.

Oracle is in no way correct. Putting ridiculous barriers on software MADE FOR making software is ludicrous. Google is not making money because of the APIs, they simply used them because they already existed. Copyright is in a sorry state as it is. This IP nonsense is nonsense.

Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

#172

Post by meddlepal »

sjwright wrote: post #70
meddlepal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've been told by a contact in their database sales team is that there pipeline for on-premise licenses is drying up quickly but their SaaS business is doing well.

> pipeline for on-premise licenses Sorry for being a grammar nazi, but this one is a serious pet peeve. The singular of "premises" isn't "premise", it's "premises". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premises

I'm not sure that's correct. The pluralization is for licenses not on-premise.

Either way "on-premises licenses" sounds weird so I'm likely to stick with "on-premise licenses" regardless. Sorry.

Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

#173

Post by grzm »

meddlepal wrote: post #172
sjwright wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pipeline for on-premise licenses Sorry for being a grammar nazi, but this one is a serious pet peeve. The singular of "premises" isn't "premise", it's "premises". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premises

I'm not sure that's correct. The pluralization is for licenses not on-premise. Either way "on-premises licenses" sounds weird so I'm likely to stick with "on-premise licenses" regardless. Sorry.

Premises (singular) is a location. He was on the premises.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20premises

Premise (singular) is a presupposition. The premise is that we can get this done in 3 weeks.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise

I agree, it sounds weird. I'd avoid it all together and use on-site.

Edit to add: or, as uncle-comment (?) pointed out with the Wikipedia article, on-premises software is a thing. On-prem might be a good compromise, depending on your penchant for shortening like that.

Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

#175

Post by Dylan16807 »

jolux wrote: post #108
Oletros wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that Florian Mueller is an unbiased source, he was paid by Oracle while the trial was happening

Well if you could point me to an unbiased source trying to argue the other side of this question, then sure. I really want to know both sides of this issue and it's nearly impossible to find someone separating the quintessential geek love for Google and geek hatred for Oracle from the facts of the case other than Mueller. Honestly I'm all for liberalizing copyrights and fair use but it makes me mad to see Google goin…

> The fair use defense is not meant for multi-billion dollar multinational corporations that tried to shirk licensing by violating copyrights.

Just because a giant company wants to be paid, and another giant company could afford to pay them, doesn't mean the bill was justified. Huge companies get access to fair use too. It's the flip side of the fact that noncommercial uses are capable of infringing.

Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

#176

Post by breakingcups »

paulddraper wrote: post #109
koolba wrote: post #5

Is there anyone that's not on Oracle's payroll that sides with them on this case?

Microsoft probably wouldn't mind Oracle winning.

Someone made a great point about the WSL (Linux) layer in Windows in this thread.

Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

#177

Post by bdcravens »

diebir wrote: post #100

Oracle is set to repeat the trajectory of SCO. Their primary product (the Oracle DB engine) is being displaced by the NoSQL and things like Postgres. The "next generation" of developers equals SQL engines with "old and bad", and when forced, it ends up with Postgres anyway. Oracle used to survive in significant part by the support of the "database administrators" class. This layer of support is also becoming thinner…

> Their primary product (the Oracle DB engine) is being displaced by the NoSQL and things like Postgres.

Worth noting they own MySQL (via Sun acquisition)

Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

#178

Post by curun1r »

curt15 wrote: post #145
gribbly wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or even to C# since apparently MS got the memo on Open Source Actually Microsoft was with Oracle on the whole 'API's should be copyrightable' and lobbied on their behalf during the case. Microsoft claimed that: "If Google's position that APIs can't be copyrighted stands, it will "destabilize" the entire software industry" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/microsoft-forese...

One wonders where they stand now that they've reimplemented the Linux kernel APIs in Windows 10.

Or considering they became such a large company selling a product that targeted IBM compatible systems. In that case, they were a consumer of what was essentially an API, but one wonders whether Microsoft would be in the position it is in today if IBM had been able to prevent Compaq and other vendors from creating clean-room implementations of what was essentially the IBM PC API.

IBM would have been in a much better position to push OS/2 and supplant Microsoft's OS offerings if it would have had a monopoly on the PC's supporting it's PC interface.

Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

#179

Post by BinaryIdiot »

pjmlp wrote: post #162
diebir wrote: post #100

Oracle is set to repeat the trajectory of SCO. Their primary product (the Oracle DB engine) is being displaced by the NoSQL and things like Postgres. The "next generation" of developers equals SQL engines with "old and bad", and when forced, it ends up with Postgres anyway. Oracle used to survive in significant part by the support of the "database administrators" class. This layer of support is also becoming thinner…

Maybe for startups, on the enterprise space I am yet to see any customer move away from Oracle, SQL Server, DB2 and similar.

When I worked government contracting they had broad goals handed down which they must work toward without it being an explicit requirement. One of these goals? Get on top of an open source only stack for security, cost and future interoperability between other groups.

I worked on several projects where they were originally using Oracle or MarkLogic and we transitioned them to Postgres or various other, open source tech.

If the slow moving government is moving various projects away from Oracle, I would be shocked if some businesses weren't doing so as well. Now I don't know if moving away from proprietary is a trend or the more frequent than moving to them.

Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

#180

Post by Dylan16807 »

rhizome wrote: post #77
Spivak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could, by a similar method, generate all possible images but that doesn't mean you would be able to copyright them all. The creative element would become the act of identifying specific images within your set with artistic merit -- those would be copyrightable.

Nope, there is no "merit test" for copyright. Copyright attaches when the creation is fixed in tangible form.

It's not a "merit test", it's just "these are the ones the artist chose".

Copyright attaches to creative works when they are fixed in tangible form. An exhaustive list of every combination of colors in order is not creative.

Post reply on HN