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

Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 433 posts

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#101

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

jasode wrote: post #49

>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…

> If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to name functions. We'll have to waste brain cycles coming up and alternative spellings of methods to stay away from copyright infringement.

It's worse than that isn't it? Naming is how you link things. What happens to WINE if it is illegal to use the same names Kernel32 does?

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#102

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

st1x7 wrote: post #74
jasode wrote: post #49

>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…

I wonder how a meaningful discussion about namespace trees and API spelling takes place at the Supreme Court considering the background of the justices.

They're smart people and these are not hard concepts.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#103

Post by belorn »

compsciphd wrote: post #75
marcosdumay wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is different. In the GPL case, you are distributing the software, not just using the API. I don't know if it's different enough, but it's not the exact same issue.

if I distribute the GPL library (say libreadline) with my app, I'd probably agree with you. If I expect the end user to have libreadline installed on their machine (from debian / redhat repos, and for argument sake Debian/Red Hat/et al aren't distributing my app), I think I'd disagree. I'm not distributing any GPLd code. I think its a bit more complicated if Debian/Red Hat are distributing my non GPLd app that links…

If you explain to a judge the difference between distributing a library and app code to the user, and expecting the user to download the library themselves and then you combine the app-code and the library afterward, will they care or will they see the two methods as being practically identical in terms of forming a single derivative program out of the library and app-code.

In the past people argued that streaming could not be copyright infringement since the recipient never received a copy of the movie. Courts however did not see much of an meaningful distinction between streaming a movie and downloading a movie since the experience from the user were close to identical and the perceived impact on the publisher were also identical.

During a conference I recall a lawyer explaining that a judge does not like arguments that try to use tricks to walk around laws. It makes the judge look like a fool and that annoys them.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#104

Post by tenuousemphasis »

tasubotadas wrote: post #10

I think it is quite likely that we as a society would be better off without any kind of copyright or IP. This might prevent some of the parties doing huge upfront investments in some of the projects, but if we learned something from OSS and, most importantly, Linux is that gradual and tiny improvements over 30 years can compound to a behemoth that eats any commercial solution for lunch.

Stephen Kinsella makes a great case for doing away with all intellectual property laws in Against Intellectual Property.

https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#105

Post by coldpie »

rightbyte wrote: post #97
crazypython wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richard Stallman would like 30 year copyrights, and to unbundle copyright.

I wonder when the first GPLd software will be public copyright and I can modify it and sell it at my wits? 60 years?

Interesting question. The GPL was first published in 1989. Let's assume it was first used for something Stallman wrote, by himself, with no other authors. Stallman is 67 now. US male average life expectancy gives him about another 10 years (sorry to be morbid). Current US copyright law means his work is under copyright for 70 years after he passes away. So that's about 80 years from now, or in 2100 the first-ever GPL program can be distributed in binary form without its source, as it was written in 1989. What a gift to the public domain.

US copyright law is utterly broken.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#106

Post by Wowfunhappy »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #101
jasode wrote: post #49

>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…

> If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to name functions. We'll have to waste brain cycles coming up and alternative spellings of methods to stay away from copyright infringement. It's worse than that isn't it? Naming is how you link things. What happens to WINE if it is illegal to use the same names Kernel32 does?

From everything I've read, Wine would quite clearly be illegal if the court rules in favor of Oracle.

I am very worried about this case.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#107

Post by Wowfunhappy »

yetihehe wrote: post #96
threatofrain wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will likely be no such thing as "drop-in" replacement anymore either.

Or it will create api compatibility layers (shims).

Wouldn't the compatibility layer be infringing copyright?

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#108

Post by elmo2you »

jasode wrote: post #49

>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…

It might also be worth mentioning that this case is first and foremost a big money power play (arguably even with abuse of the legal system), between two immensely powerful businesses (each of which probably deserve to be called a criminal enterprises, but hey .. this is America), and very little about the merit of their respective arguments.

In other words: both primary care about winning the case. No matter how they get it done, or whatever the fallout/consequences will be for anyone but themselves. Arguably that is fine for any company, since their sole responsibility is to look after itself. But the legal ramifications of their (legal) actions can extend far beyond that, for which I certainly consider them and the US legal system responsible, collectively.

I sincerely wonder sometimes, that besides the potential damage many do recognize as a fallout of this court case, how many people realize that mud fight between two way-too-powerful sandbox bullies may end up being responsible for making the USA a pariah within the landscape of future software development?

Or does everyone believe that if this goes sideways, that the rest of the world will just respect this "funny logic" and all go with it?

In fact, how many Americans even realize that the increasing radicalization and absurdity of their intellectual property rules will inevitably harm the USA big time in the long run? Or does everyone still think that the USA will remain the center of everything and the only one dictating the rules?

Things like these do not happen in a vacuum. The rest of the world is watching.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#109

Post by op03 »

jasode wrote: post #49

>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…

Not if you marry a good lawyer. Just a tip.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#110

Post by Wowfunhappy »

swiley wrote: post #25
segfaultbuserr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this timeline, the Wine repo mirror will be instantaneously banned on GitHub.

Wine's userspace being legal is probably what keeps the gamers from just running the available userspace source code from Microsoft. I doubt getting it banned would be something Microsoft actually wants.

But unless Microsoft actually embraces Wine, that would still leave the project in a weird legal gray area. Will e.g. Valve want to support the project, knowing that at any moment Microsoft could theoretically have a shift in strategy and become litigious?
Post reply on HN