Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

Post by nojvek » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:04 AM UTC

kbutler wrote: post #517

na85 wrote: post #466

Earlier 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.

Post by hcknwscommenter » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:06 AM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #394

phkahler wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Dealt with previously - APIs are copyrightable. Bzzt. You really need to make a citation for that statement. Without it there is no point in considering your other 3. The case law around that issue is exactly Oracle vs Google.

Bzzt. They're cited. By me. In this thread. The 2018 decision is not the same as the 2014 decision or the 2012 decision.

Post by hcknwscommenter » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:10 AM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #525

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clean-room reverse engineering is only useful in a world where APIs aren't copyrightable. I disagree. However, I am not aware of any caselaw on this point. It is an interesting logical twist you have added, but I fail to see how it must be that way in view of the fact that copyright explicitly allows clean-room type reverse engineering.

> in view of the fact that copyright explicitly allows clean-room type reverse engineering. The legal status of reverse engineering is not at all clear-cut. There are many nuances depending on the circumstances, and much of it is determined by case law rather than statute. There's no clear basis for you to make claims about how this new class of copyright (on APIs) will interact with reverse engineering. However, it…

Post by hcknwscommenter » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:20 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #495

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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. No, no, no, that is not what I said. I was talking about the API of the BIOS. The BIOS source code is, of course, copyrightable. That is why IBM was able to make it very hard for people to copy it until folks did a proper clean room. Why would I go into detail about the counter measure if it wa…

Post by hcknwscommenter » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:24 AM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #505

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #462

Earlier 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.

By that logic WINE shouldn't be allowed to exist either, since it copies Windows' API. Copying APIs is strictly necessary for interoperability. Allowing APIs to be copyrightable encourages monopolies by legally prohibiting newcomers' software from being compatible with their competition. It'd be like if Microsoft were allowed to sue Google Docs and Libreoffice for making their software able to open Word documents. (E…