It is time. #deleteoracle
Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
541–550 of 643 posts
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? The proper response would have been for Google to either pay the license or develop their own write once use anywhere software. Instead, the took the shortcut of copying someone's hard work.
Interoperability trumps copyright IMHO.
Unfortunately courts don't pay attention to your opinion. They only pay attention to grumpy old codgers who don't really understand technology or innovation. They only understand precendents or long ago useless decisions of previous courts and the pragmatism of someone raised on thoughts on computers and ideas of fairness from the 1950s.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bugs are a red-herring to the discussion. Bugs doesn't get you out of copying. The question is: did you copy or not? Google argued "we certainly did copy but APIs can't be copyrighted." Which was not the law at the time they did the copying and is not the law now .
Except it is the law now and then that APIs aren't copyrightable according to the court that's generally supposed to handle such things, in this instance The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. They've ruled plenty of times on the matter, and have developed decades of case law stating that implementing APIs is totally kosher. Sony v. Bleem is great example. There the appeals court ruled that not only could Ble…
I bet if one looks hard enough he would find links between these judges and moneyed interests tracing back to Oracle.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it is the law now and then that APIs aren't copyrightable according to the court that's generally supposed to handle such things, in this instance The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. They've ruled plenty of times on the matter, and have developed decades of case law stating that implementing APIs is totally kosher. Sony v. Bleem is great example. There the appeals court ruled that not only could Ble…
I bet if one looks hard enough he would find links between these judges and moneyed interests tracing back to Oracle.
Eh, I wouldn't go that far. CAFC judges just tend to be appointed (at least a little) for how much of a hard on they have intellectual property rights in general. The whole circuit was setup pretty much only to do patent appeals for the most part. The judges probably just think of themselves as 'principled'. And they are technically allowed to do this, despite it being kind of a dick move.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of similar responses regarding the API copyright issue. APIs have been 'subject to copyright' for 4 years, since the 2014 decision in this case. Lets see some key details: This is the 2012 ruling: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf Alsup indicates that SSO isn't dead law, but finds that APIs aren't copyrightable because they are 'the only one way to write" things to get the key functionality…
How does this not apply, in any way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_of_... I don't understand how this is never brought up with regard to API copyright. API's are software, software has been deemed copyright-able, thus, API's are copyright-able. Am I going crazy or missing something?
Many commentators on this thread are desperate to come to the opposite conclusion despite the clear case law on this question.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
You actually do a clean room implementation rather than copying chunks of your competitor's work and then pretending it's allowed under fair use? Seems pretty straightforward.
I'm trying to understand here - is the idea that if they had put a bunch of developers who had never seen the API that they were implementing (normal clean rooms allow documentation, but api documentation is pretty much the signatures and that pretty much is the material we're talking about being copyrighted), provided the clean room engineers only with example code that used the apis and that they had to make work t…
>normal clean rooms allow documentation
Uhhh. No. Just no. I don't think you understand the meaning of "clean room" in this context. In this context, clean room means that the person in the room is untainted by any copyrighted information full stop.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool. So if I just make a Mickey Mouse cartoon from scratch I should be good.
Or a film about Snow White, Pinocchio, Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty etc.
Sure. If you managed to actually do that. Of course courts are free to infer as to the unlikelihood of that.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devil’s advocate here... the method signatures, the layout of the classes, what inherits from what, what bits are private vs public, are all pretty non-trivial. Moreover it’s where a lot of the subjective decision making happens, whereas the actual implementations are straightforward once you know what the method signatures should be. I don’t necessarily agree with the decision but I can see where they’re coming from…
Triviality isn't the determining factor of what's copyrightable. Edit: And particularly there's tons of case law that this stuff isn't copyrightable, see Sony v. Bleem, where a company literally wrote an emulator of a PS1, and courts said that was fine. Even to straight up sell as a competing product, and for running on competitors machines. Edit2: And the otherwise shitty DMCA even has explicit exemptions for softwa…
Bleem did not copy. An emulator is not necessarily a copy.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Sony v. Bleem they used blackbox testing and created their own original code from that. If Google had done the sam they would have been fine.
Because of Java's reflection, a black box approach would have given you the same API names that are being discussed here.
Not necessarily. You don't have to "look" at the reflection.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#550It may be helpful for readers to look at the actual meat and potatoes of the decision itself. I recommend jumping in at Page 27 of the decision so that they can see how the fair use factors were evaluated in this case: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... Fair use has four factors, lets see how it shook out: 1) Purpose and Character: Google tried to argue that because android is free that i…
> Dealt with previously - APIs are copyrightable IANAL, but doesn't this contradict case law elsewhere?
No