571–580 of 643 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the pain that has been caused by Google deciding they needed to reinvent Java, and do so in a way that isn't really compatible with the new releases, I would say I'm ok with this.
So you're OK with causing massive problems to anyone trying to provide alternatives to proprietary APIs just to stick it to Google?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Well of course it is possible to make derivatives of APIs that are also subject to copyright. My point is that it is also possible to make a clean room reimplimentation that is not a derivative work, which is much more valuable. Just don't copy is the lesson here.
You have not at all established this point. What makes you think that the API of a reverse engineered implementation is not tainted by the copyright of the original API? It's clear that clean room reverse engineering produces an independent implementation, but it also seems clear that such a technique does not prevent the structure, sequence and organization of the original API from strongly influencing the structure, sequence and organization of the reimplementation's API.
Earlier 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…
One function, rangechececk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 la…
And even if not, surely there would be another brand to gladly take their place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically it's not the law yet and may never be the law.
Uhh. No. At least under any interpretation I know about what the law "is."
So, barring this case being both heard and affirmed by the Supreme Court, this interpretation of copyright law, while potentially decisive in the outcome of the present case, isn't, substantially, law, so much as an idea of what the law might be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the ruling: > The Java API is a collection of “pre-written Java source code programs for common and more advanced computer functions.” I'm not too familiar with Java, but I believe they are mistaking APIs for libraries there. Did Google infringe on the libraries or the actual API? Like did Google actually infringe on what Oracle calls the "Java API" (but is actually a library), and are we all talking past each o…
> if Oracle hadn't also accused Oracle initially of patent infringement. Was this a mistake or did Oracle actually accuse themselves of infringing their own patents?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're OK with causing massive problems to anyone trying to provide alternatives to proprietary APIs just to stick it to Google?
Judges don't decide what's fair or ethical, they determine how disputed action intercedes with law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, the Oracle Google case is not about derivative works. The Copyright Act, however, is; if APIs are protected by copyright, than making a derivative work of an API is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Which is a key reason why there is widespread concern about the CAFCs ruling on API copyright. (OTOH, Google losing on fair use at the CAFC makes it more likely that the API copyright issue gets to the…
Clean room reimplimentation is not considered a derivative work. Derivative works requires actually copying (and then derivatizing).
No literal copying of text is required for something to be a derivative work. Transforming a work implementing an API into documentation describing the API would produce a derivative work of that API, if the API is protected by copyright. Transforming that documentation of the API into another implementation of that API would also produce another derived work of the API.
Earlier 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…
>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 That is just not true. According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction.
The Federal Circuit has the right to hear and decide this particular case, but they do not have the right to establish binding precedent on lower courts or other appeals courts in matters of copyright law. This has been explained to you repeatedly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weird part was in their view on copyrightability of APIs.
That's not weird, either. What would have been weird is a finding that they're not copyrightable, given that it would have been completely at odds with the statutes and case law we have concerning copyright. The point is, nuance matters. If you're physically attacked and defend yourself in a way where you end up killing the guy, you claim that your actions were justified. You don't go to court claiming that killing p…
[...]
> And by every indication, we're right on track.
You're leaving out the step where the district court found that APIs aren't copyrightable, but the district court was overruled by an appeals court that normally has no right to rule on such matters and does not set binding precedent on such matters. If Oracle's now-dead patent claims hadn't been included in their original complaint, then the process you describe would likely have ended Oracle's case at step one with the Ninth Circuit upholding Alsup's ruling on API copyrightability.