51–60 of 131 posts
Can someone give the background of why Google did what they did? Did they want to block Java compatibility or was that a side effect of some other objective?
Can someone give the background of why Google did what they did? Did they want to block Java compatibility or was that a side effect of some other objective?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, reimplementing API's is crazy? Should Microsoft sue wine developers? Should Amazon sue anyone making a compatible EC2 API?
The .NET standard libraries are part of the CLI which is a part of ISO/IEC 23271:2012, a standard. I have no idea when it comes to the EC2 API. Should it be legal for me to copy all of the declaring code of my employers product and after writing my own implementation selling it as my own product/work under a different name?
The ones doing the copy were the programmers from Apache Foundation
Can someone give the background of why Google did what they did? Did they want to block Java compatibility or was that a side effect of some other objective?
(Reposting a question I asked in an earlier discussion, where I may have arrived too late for anyone to see it). That cases raises an interesting precedent issue that I have not been able to find the answer to. Let's assume that the Supreme Court decides not to take the appeal, so the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable stands. What courts is this precedent for? Genera…
I believe the CAFC decision is not binding precedent for any court. If P sues D in the 9th circuit over copyright, even if there are patent claims as well (such that an appeal on a copyright issue would necessarily go to the CAFC), the CAFC decision in Oracle v. Google is not binding precedent. Of course that does not mean that the district court would be likely to ignore the CAFC decision in Oracle v. Google, but in…
That raises the possibility of copyright plaintiffs tossing in a patent claim that they have no intention of trying to actually win on, just to make sure that they will get CAFC's view of copyright instead of the 9th Circuit's view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, reimplementing API's is crazy? Should Microsoft sue wine developers? Should Amazon sue anyone making a compatible EC2 API?
The .NET standard libraries are part of the CLI which is a part of ISO/IEC 23271:2012, a standard. I have no idea when it comes to the EC2 API. Should it be legal for me to copy all of the declaring code of my employers product and after writing my own implementation selling it as my own product/work under a different name?
How do you think compatible API implementations have been done until now?
This 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.
Yet Google claims that the implementing code should be protected by copyright. How is "return a > b ? a : b;" not a method of operation if "public static int Max(int a, int b)" is... If the implementation, CODE(!), is of course a formalized description of methods of operation, the declaring code (or API) is providing a means of access to it. Something that takes quite a bit of thought and creativity to do well.
This 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.
There is nothing contradictory about it: as you say, the API is not the method of operation, it's one of many possible descriptions of the method of operation. I don't think anyone is confused by what an API is--its a simple concept.
Then what exactly is an API, if it's so clear and simple to define in your opinion?
Depending on how one stretches it, everything that is not assembly is an API. I don't know the details of the particular legal argument involved but it's going to get very murky if you claim certain levels of abstraction are copy-rightable and others are not.
Can someone give the background of why Google did what they did? Did they want to block Java compatibility or was that a side effect of some other objective?
> In November 2006, Sun open-sources Java.
>In November 2007, Sun approves Google's use of Java in Android.
> April of 2009, Oracle Corp. announced that it would be acquiring Sun
Subsequently Oracle figured it could get some money from Google by requiring a license fee
http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-real-history-of-java-and-an...
It gets more complicted though, see http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-real-history-of-java-and-an... and a bunch of other stuff