only murica has software patents and software patents are fucking retarded.
Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
641–650 of 771 posts
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#642Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies don't bother with principled consistency, and so I wouldn't expect any from Microsoft if this goes Oracle's way. It's totally possible that Microsoft thinks APIs being non-copyrightable is good for them on net, but that if SCOTUS decides otherwise that they might as well go crush WINE anyway since they now have the means.
What would the benefit to MS be to crush w WINE. They have made a big effort to rebuild their reputation with developers, and WINE doesn’t really hurt their bottom line. They have no incentive.
You’re suggesting that Microsoft may choose not to crush WINE even if they had the right, because some other incentive holds them back. I think GP agrees, and is merely saying that Microsoft’s current philosophical beliefs would not likely be that incentive.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#643Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Google lawyer should be fired. I can’t believe you’d put the best of the best in front of the SC and the guy didn’t even sound like he could describe what an API actually is in non-technical terms. I don’t see how he represented the best legal representation Google could buy.
How do you know the Google lawyer isn't representing the wishes of his client? A little voice in the back of my head wonders if maybe google's position has changed over the years...
Hanlon's razor may apply here: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
albeit in a different form.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#644Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They produced a better product, and the market rewarded them for that. You could make that same argument about patents in general, couldn't you? If you invent something, say, a new battery, and somebody else copies it, doesn't have your R&D-costs invested and prices it accordingly lower than you, the market will "reward them" by buying from them instead of you, they're getting the same thing after all. We do want s…
> If you invent something, say, a new battery, and somebody else copies it, You should distinguish the concepts of copyright and patent. A hardware design, like a battery, is not copyrightable in general. The technical drawings or a written description can be copyrighted, but the abstract technology and process cannot. Under copyright laws, it's illegal for me to duplicate your documents, but there is nothing to stop…
Sure, patents are a different thing, but they serve a similar purpose. "If you don't have to to the research and invest in creating the technology by copying, you can do it cheaper which the market will reward" is what both copyright and patents are created to change.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#645Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. But what is discussed here is not the cookbook but just the table of contents. The actual recipes are different. Making another cookbook with chapter 1: salads, chapter 2: soups etc. is common practice. The question is how much detail you are allowed to copy in order to allow for interoperability. For instance, a dinner might call for the Oracle potato salad of Section 1.3…
>> the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. > But what is discussed here is not the cookbook but just the table of contents. You probably can't copy that either. That's like Oracle's example of making a new Harry Potter book with all the same chapter titles. I don't know if there are any good examples of APIs one can make based on books..
I mean you very much can copy
Chapter 1: Introducing the main character .. Chapter 6: Introducing side character Chapter 7: Arrival at the main story place .. Chapter 17: The final chapter
In fact there are whole classifications of literature that identify basic storylines, tropes, structure etc. . The reason you couldn't copy the harry potter chapter titles exactly is because they contain specific titles, e.g. "the boy who lived", but "" as the first chapter title is again very, very common.
Also, the argument is about reuse/interoperability. Recipes are something you use and the naming is functional and it is important that it is similar enough. I am not aware of harry potter chapters being used like that, but if authors start talking about "The sorting hat" chapter as a term of the art , then yes you should be able to use that term. Similarly to how you can introduce a weapon in your novel without paying royalties to Chekhov.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#646Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Google lawyer should be fired. I can’t believe you’d put the best of the best in front of the SC and the guy didn’t even sound like he could describe what an API actually is in non-technical terms. I don’t see how he represented the best legal representation Google could buy.
Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest.
> This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest.
Is your speculation that Google had this sudden realization between the filing of the various written arguments (including the standard of review for fair use memo on August 7) after fighting this case for years (all of which they've had a similar position), or do you think their written arguments are consistent with this theory?
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#647Earlier quoted context omitted.
well it would be funny if amazon starts to sue oracle. https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Task... I mean even the freaking headers are the same which some could consider an implementation detail.
Oh yea, if Oracle wins Amazon is filing infringement claims against Azure, Google Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and probably others beside the very next day. Meanwhile MongoDB is going to sue Amazon for reimplementing their API. The real showstopper will be when IBM sues everyone who has ever implemented SQL support for a database. Copyright lasts 70 years past the life of the author, people would still be infringing on SQL t…
actually that would be good for the market, since your courts really see, that the world is going down.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#648I'm not sure why so many people here seem to be surprised by this, I got the exact same impression from the hearing. The problem for Google on the copyrightability front is that "compilations" of non-copyrightable items can be copyrightable even if the underlying items themselves are not, if the "selection, coordination, or arrangement" of those items involves sufficient creativity to be considered an "original work…
> Corona Data Systems, Eagle Computer, and Handwell Corporation, were successfully sued by IBM for copyright infringement in 1984, and were forced to re-implement their BIOS in a way which did not infringe IBM's copyrights [1].
> To develop a legal BIOS, Phoenix used a clean room design [2].
I think there was some creative process in designing BIOS.
There is no difference between binary and text format, it is just a serialization. WASM text format and binary format. Java source and bytecode.
API documentation is certainly copyrightable, even text definition file. A lot of creative process goes to putting braces, spaces, commas, naming
static double min(double a, double b)
static double
min (double x, double y)
Yes, problem is copyright law.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#649Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest.
If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle? I can't imagine Oracle would have a problem with getting to say they were right, and getting a boatload of cash, without all the bother of the Supreme Court. And doesn't intentional bad representation have weird and costly externalities, like reputation damage for the lawyer? I love the image of Google and Oracle behaving like…
> If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle?
Well, it would certainly be much safer not to present such a comprehensive written argumentation and hope that you can somehow sabotage all that (and all the written arguments from friendly amici, etc., by a clumsy presentation at oral argument.) I think "highly successsful Supreme Court lawyer doing his best has a bad day at oral argument, perhaps in part due to the unusual format" is more likely than some kind of "deliberately throw the case by trying to screw up oral argument" thing.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#650Reading the article I get a feeling that the judges don't really understand what an API is.
Also, the comment > I'm concerned that under your argument, all computer code is at risk of losing protection under 102(b)
It seems rather incorrect in case of reimplementing an API. It's not like the underlying logic has been changed or copied it's just that the top level API has been modified to be compatible with the system being used. Or am I missing something?