Is the logical extension of this that anyone who's written a standard C library was in violation of Kernighan & Ritchie's copyright?
Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
21–30 of 131 posts
Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
#22This advise by the Solicitor General hinges on an interpretation of section 102(b) of the copyright act. That section essentially says that "methods of operation" can't be copyrighted. The Solicitor General does not understand that APIs are a formalized description of "methods of operation" (page 14). I suggest reading the entire advisory, it's quite frustrating and contradicts itself.
All code is a formalized description of "methods of operation". Unless you believe software achieves practical results without the benefit of hardware. And that's assuming you write pure assembly, else you also have firmware, operating systems, drivers, libraries, runtimes, or whatever supporting infrastructure is needed for your code to do anything meaningful.
Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
#23Will be interesting to see if Microsoft sought a license from Apple for Project Islandwood...
Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
#24""[Google]'s Section 102(b) argument also suffers from a broader flaw." (this sentence transitions from the Administration's rejection of Google's suggestion that declaring code is inherently more functional and less expressive than implementing code to the DoJ's agreement with Oracle's lawyers on the purpose of Section 102(b))" That Google would be in the right by copying the declaring code of 27(!) different namesp…
That FOSS Patents piece is the best commentary I've seen on the subject, thanks for bringing to my attention.
Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
#25""[Google]'s Section 102(b) argument also suffers from a broader flaw." (this sentence transitions from the Administration's rejection of Google's suggestion that declaring code is inherently more functional and less expressive than implementing code to the DoJ's agreement with Oracle's lawyers on the purpose of Section 102(b))" That Google would be in the right by copying the declaring code of 27(!) different namesp…
That FOSS Patents piece is the best commentary I've seen on the subject, thanks for bringing to my attention.
Finding non-shill opinions on this whole issue is quite hard. Once you check the facts of the case it's really quite open-and-shut in Oracle's favor.
Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
#26""[Google]'s Section 102(b) argument also suffers from a broader flaw." (this sentence transitions from the Administration's rejection of Google's suggestion that declaring code is inherently more functional and less expressive than implementing code to the DoJ's agreement with Oracle's lawyers on the purpose of Section 102(b))" That Google would be in the right by copying the declaring code of 27(!) different namesp…
That FOSS Patents piece is the best commentary I've seen on the subject, thanks for bringing to my attention.
Ah, Florian Mueller, a paid Oracle shill.
Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
#27Maybe we should change the standard licences - GPL, MIT, etc. - to include a caveat "free to use without restriction... except by companies known as, or ever known as, Oracle Corporation"...
Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
#28Maybe we should change the standard licences - GPL, MIT, etc. - to include a caveat "free to use without restriction... except by companies known as, or ever known as, Oracle Corporation"...
There are a few more exceptions, that come to my mind: Military, Intelligence Agencies and their subcontractors, TBTF-Banks, Disney, Sony ... ahrr and the list goes on
Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
#29> and likened the Java API’s to Charles Dickens and other literary works Never, could have I ever predicted to one day see that as an actual excerpt from an article. By the way, this is a wonderful exercise of effort on our part as a society. Really very important we sort these these nuances out. People may be dying, the poor may be getting poorer, but this is what is important. /s
>By the way, this is a wonderful exercise of effort on our part as a society. Really very important we sort these these nuances out. People may be dying, the poor may be getting poorer, but this is what is important. /s It's sarcastic, I get it, but it is also profoundly stupid. Sorting out intellectual property and ownership is _the_ 21st century problem as we continually move away from the importance of physical ob…
calling what I said "profoundly stupid" adds little to the discussion, and only stands to subvert my expression of frustration, which is where the sarcasm comes from. You may disagree, but you don't need to knock down what I said to do so.
Likewise, take a step back. Maybe take two. What our our priorities as a society, as a species? These two companies with loads of money and resources, battling it out over if API's are copyrightable. I'm not saying that's not a significant legal matter, I'm saying in context of everything else, it's squabble. It's part of a big circle jerk that companies play with each other in attempt to screw one another so they can make more money.
I guess the future really will be nothing but lawyers.
Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing
#30This advise by the Solicitor General hinges on an interpretation of section 102(b) of the copyright act. That section essentially says that "methods of operation" can't be copyrighted. The Solicitor General does not understand that APIs are a formalized description of "methods of operation" (page 14). I suggest reading the entire advisory, it's quite frustrating and contradicts itself.
I agree that one shouldn't ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence. ("The Solicitor General does not understand...") BUT! At the White House level, incompetence equals malice. We have every right to expect competence from a level as high as the White House.
Well, these are the same people who think you can safely backdoor encryption.