I've read all the ideas around why or why not Google is liable or Oracle is being frivolous... Can an "Expert" tell me what would happen to Google(and Android by Association) if Oracle won full out? Besides the paying out of billion(s).
Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
511–520 of 643 posts
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#512Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why it's a scary issue or even controversial why an API would be subject copyright. An API, in my mind, is similar to design drawings or blueprints. Independently figuring out how to implement those drawings doesn't change the fact that you copied the design.
The API is less like the blueprints and more like the building code. This is perhaps a bad example as many building codes are copyrighted, but a lot of people find this as absurd as copywriting an API.
Building codes being copyrighted is fine. But if I want to make my own building code, but have all existing builders be able to easily transition, then I must necessirily be making a copy.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could call it max(b,a) but that would be fucking stupid. People shouldn't have to write shit code cause judges are tech illiterate.
And just how is max(a,b) good code and max(b,a) bad code?
Code written for one will fail for the other, and negates the whole point of interoperability. Therefore the method signature should not be copyrightable
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why did you bring it up? My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable and then made an attempt at protecting it a different way. Oracle believes they can copyright an API and almost everything in the industry was built with the belief that you cannot copyright an API.
>My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable Your original post was about IBM not being able to copyright the PC Bios. Which is simply not true in any way shape or form. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp... Relevant portion "But one problem remained with their IBM-compatible machine. How would they recreate the IBM BIOS without br…
You don't seem to understand what an API is.
The API of a BIOS is not the whole thing! It just specifies the interface by which the BIOS can be called by the OS.
For a crude analogy, consider the interface specification that most modern cars adhere to: there will be a steering wheel with a certain shape, size, and position relative to the driver's seat; there will be two or three pedals, with the accelerator on the right, the brake pedal to its left, and the clutch pedal, if present, to the left of the brake; etc. etc. None of this tells you whether the car runs on gasoline, diesel, CNG, or electricity, or whether the motor is in the back or the front, how many cylinders it has, etc. — all these are implementation details that do not usually affect the interface much.
The implementation of the BIOS — the code that actually performs its various functions — is clearly copyrightable, and always has been. But the API is just the specification of what those functions are and how they can be invoked. Imagine if one car manufacturer had been able to copyright the steering wheel and pedal arrangement that we're all familiar with!
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who reversed engineered the IBM BIOS had the API specification -- actually they had the entire source code. They didn't just fire random interrupts at the BIOS and see what it did. But what they did do was take that specification and describe it the detail necessary for completely fresh implementation.
Not true at all. It was a clean-room reverse engineering job. Yes, they could have looked at the API, but they did not. More specifically, they erected an information wall between those who had the API specification and those who did not, and used the results from those who did not.
One team looked at the API and source code and everything and used that to develop the specification for the "clean" team to implement. That's the point. Collectively they didn't start with nothing.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you oppose copyright on all software, i. e. source code, as well? That has nothing to do with anything. Copyright is a human construct. Somethings are decided to be copyrightable and somethings are not. Not every creative endeavor should be copyrighted, other should, and other should with major limitations. APIs were never copyrightable. Ever. The computing and programming industry developed with this assumption…
Here is an example of an API subject to patents in MTC user equipment. http://patents.2012.apievangelist.com/2017/12/07/2012-08-23-...
I said 'copyright'.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
[cynical comment] Do you think the court is trying to guarantee jobs for lawyers?
That lawyers exist is a good thing. It means we have a human, nuanced perspective on the finer points and interpretation of the law, which in Western civilization reigns supreme over all other things. Lawyers will never become obsolete until we no longer live in a society that obeys the rule of law.
In an ideal world, lawyers would be advocates seeking to provide a nuanced, human perspective.
In the current world, I think it is more common to be seeking loopholes, weaknesses, and exploits instead.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
That lawyers exist is a good thing. It means we have a human, nuanced perspective on the finer points and interpretation of the law, which in Western civilization reigns supreme over all other things. Lawyers will never become obsolete until we no longer live in a society that obeys the rule of law.
In an ideal world, lawyers would be advocates seeking to provide a nuanced, human perspective. In the current world, I think it is more common to be seeking loopholes, weaknesses, and exploits instead.
I can see how a person that only knows about law what they read in the headlines could come to that conclusion, but painting lawyers with a broad brush as you have is no more of a generalization than me saying that every Facebook employee is devoid of morals and ethics.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#519Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi ABCLAW, I read page 17 and it is clearly written by someone that doesn't understand software. My non-lawyer reading of the justification implies that polymorphism violates copyright law - which is an even deeper issue. This would destroy all modern software development. Yikes! I am now even more confused. Even Oracle would disagree with this point of view. In your text, you are now making the argument that Google…
1) Judges aren't computer scientists, and LOTS of IP cases read very poorly as a result. This is a structural issue with how judges are educated within court rooms regarding the facts surrounding the disputes in question - but let's just accept it as an unfortunate cost to adjudicating the way we do. Regarding your polymorphism point, you've got the cause and effect swapped. The LACK of polymorphism was the basis for…
You aren't using the same definition of polymorphism as maire is. In the context of software, polymorphism is the practice of having an interface, one side of which has multiple alternatives which do different things.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I (personally) oppose patent protection and copyright on software, and barring that, severe time limits, like say, 5 years. You really think an API should be protected from forking or reimplementation for A CENTURY? It's absurd, Oracle agrees with me (see link at bottom) The entire PC industry was launched because clean room re-implementation of the API of the BIOS broke IBM's stranglehold. Is the world better w…
We would be using Atari, Amiga and Macs instead, and maybe some UNIX variants as well.
I was a huge C64/Amiga fan, but I honestly don't think it would have been Atari or Amiga, both companies were horribly managed. And the Mac was just horrifically overpriced for what you got. At the same time Apple was shipping a $2k non-multitasking, B&W, 128k computer with shitty graphics and sound, Commodore was shipping the Amiga 1000, with twice the memory, and a custom chipset that was not equaled until years later by VGA, or to be honest, SVGA, and at half the price of the Mac 128k.
IMHO, the Amiga 1000 was the 'iPhone' of personal computers, ridiculously better than the Mac and PC at its launch date, it was a step-function better than the Mac. But Commodore was a bungling, mismanaged company that flushed a great opportunity down the drain. It's like if you invented the iPhone, but didn't know how to sell it, market it, and get product market fit.