Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

Post by ghaff » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #96

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

It's interesting reading Thomas' dissent. As per typical Thomas appears to be arguing that it's the letter of the law that matters, whereas it's the majority opinion that the motivations and substance of the law are primary. Hackers and programmers tend to try and read the law like computer code to be "hacked" and exploited based on the letter of the law. So you'd expect us to be more sympathetic to Thomas' view. So…

I'm normally with the textualists on the court on the question of how we interpret the law, but in the case of copyright, the concept of "fair use" is specifically intended as an "extension point" where the courts could do what seemed right in changing circumstances. I like strongly typed languages too, but there are legitimate uses for void*.

Post by mtgx » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #133

protomyth wrote: post #98

I would imagine if the ruling went the other way, IBM might want to talk to all the BIOS companies. Luckily, that didn't happen.

IBM would probably want to talk to 99% of computing companies out there, not just BIOS companies :-)

Post by bscphil » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #96

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

It's interesting reading Thomas' dissent. As per typical Thomas appears to be arguing that it's the letter of the law that matters, whereas it's the majority opinion that the motivations and substance of the law are primary. Hackers and programmers tend to try and read the law like computer code to be "hacked" and exploited based on the letter of the law. So you'd expect us to be more sympathetic to Thomas' view. So…

I'm normally with the textualists on the court on the question of how we interpret the law, but in the case of copyright, the concept of "fair use" is specifically intended as an "extension point" where the courts could do what seemed right in changing circumstances. I like strongly typed languages too, but there are legitimate uses for void*.

Post by gred » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #79

gred wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't establish a new test, they applied the existing 4 tests / factors and found that they indicated fair use. The first 2 or 3 pages contain a description of the 4 tests and how they were found to apply in this case.

Not entirely. Per my understanding, this is a fairly big shift: "The fair use question is a mixed question of fact and law. Reviewing courts should appropriately defer to the jury’s findings of underlying facts, but the ultimate question whether those facts amount to a fair use is a legal question for judges to decide de novo. This approach does not violate the Seventh Amendment’s prohibition on courts reexamining fa…

Post by throwaway8581 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

cjbprime wrote: post #134

throwaway8581 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a persuasive argument because, by your logic, function implementations are also mathematical formulas and everyone agrees that they are copyrightable.

The copyrightable part of them is the creative decision making used to organize the workings of the function itself, not the formulas. Two functions could have identical algorithmic performance, but be stylistically and semantically different, have been written independently, and neither would infringe on the copyright of the other.