"The fourth statutory factor focuses upon the “effect” of the copying in the “market for or value of the copyrighted work.” §107(4).
Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not
a market substitute for Java SE. The record also showed that Java
SE’s copyright holder would benefit from the reimplementation of its
interface into a different market. "
Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
221–230 of 965 posts
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#222Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#223Does anyone have a good estimate of what this case cost Oracle and Google, especially in terms of legal fees, and where that money went ultimately?
I don't know, but it was money well spent and we should thank them for causing this important point of law to be clarified.
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#224Earlier 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.
No, definitely not. Computer code is not a formula. A formula is an idea. It describes the nature of something computable. It does not explain how to compute. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_algorithm The programmer must understand the formula in order to write computer code that implements it. The result is a creative/expressive work which is copyrightable.
Consider the following:
gcd(X, Y) = X if X == Y or gcd(X - Y, Y) if Y Is this a formula? Should this be copyright-able?
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. This case was an existential threat to multitudes of industries and the assumptions they were built on. The weird thing is it would of hurt Oracle as much as anyone. I have no clue how anyone w/any technical merit didn't understand that this was a footgun of the largest possible magnitude for them.
I had the opportunity once to talk to an IP lawyer for Oracle and brought this up. I specifically brought up the S3 compatibility of their cloud storage among other instances. His reply was “without admitting anything specific, how do you know we haven’t purchased private licenses for anything you just mentioned?”
Isn’t S3 under the Apache license?
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#226It'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…
> 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.
Speak for yourself. There are plenty of us that understand you can't take the human element out of this.
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why people are acting like this is some victory of open source I don't know that anybody is saying that Google did anything specifically Good or Just or Noble or anything. The celebratory aspect is more based on all the Bad Things that would have happened in the future if this decision had come down in favor of Oracle.
What bad things would have happened? This ruling specifically says that it was fair use, not that APIs are copyrightable - which seems to be the buggy man. As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws.
What bad things would have happened?
It would have become MUCH more dangerous to provide an alternate implementation of someone else's library or interface, which I believe would have have a profoundly negative effect on the entire software industry.
As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws.
Yes, but now there is a very strong precedent establishing the idea that copying those copyrighted API's is OK anyway (under Fair Use) under at least some circumstances. And based off the way the SCOTUS decision was worded, it strikes me (admittedly, IANAL) that the set of circumstances that are captured by this are pretty large.
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you copyright generated things? You probably could copyright the way you're generating it, but I doubt you have a legal standing about the generated text or melody itself.
Sometimes I fantasize about generating methods for creating copyrights, such that you can copyright the process of creating the copyright - for the commmunity, obviously. However, they explicitly forbid that, unfortunately. If only it worked, you could file a claim for anyone that created a copyright to your disliking, given that you probably make strong stance. While I'm at it, in a similar vein though entirely unre…
You can't copyright a procedure or process, but you can copyright the text of the instructions for the procedure. That doesn't stop someone writing an original text of instructions for doing the same thing though. That's how come there are clones of Monopoly.
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. This case was an existential threat to multitudes of industries and the assumptions they were built on. The weird thing is it would of hurt Oracle as much as anyone. I have no clue how anyone w/any technical merit didn't understand that this was a footgun of the largest possible magnitude for them.
I'd really like it if we could kill Oracle somehow. They are easily the worst player in the technology industry.
Based on what?
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good, now can we get a ruling that prevents Google, RedHat, Microsoft and others from wrecking FLOSS projects with their stifling influence? Or prevent them from eradicating competing or even original projects by doing hostile rewrites or forks?
Should we also get rid of all of GNU's hostile rewrites?
People seem to frequently forget that GNU was largely a GPL reimplementation of proprietary software.