Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#111

Post by underscores »

RexRollman wrote: post #30
markvdb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can safely backdoor encryption. If you don't know how, well, you are just stupid (which is what I figured anyway).

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#112

Post by bcg1 »

harryh wrote: post #106
RexRollman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, these are the same people who think you can safely backdoor encryption.

Justice department officials and congressmen are most definitely not the same people.

FBI is part of the justice dept.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-p...

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#113

Post by simplifier »

mikecmpbll wrote: post #103
dragonwriter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mueller has a history of doing an excellent job working things that aren't actually reasonable to informed parties that seem illuminating to people that aren't informed. It's actually a fairly key skill for a professional propagandist. I haven't actually read the piece on question here, but appearing illuminating and actually being deceptive propaganda are not mutually exclusive traits.

if that's the case, it's the job of the 'informed' guys to write similarly illuminating counter-arguments, because I've not found any yet.

Techdirt's take: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150526/16550931121/obama...

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#114

Post by bcg1 »

rayiner wrote: post #41
badlogic wrote: post #4

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.

I disagree. Unless "method of operation" is some godforsaken legalistic bastardization of the language, APIs are methods of operation, not a description. In Java you must use those exact symbols to use the software... the description would be the documentation and Javadoc comments about the code, which I agree could certainly be eligible for copyright protection

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#115

Post by bcg1 »

lorddoig wrote: post #62

Excuse me, non-American here, but a passage from an article linked within states[0]: > The nine justices request that U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., the government's top lawyer before the Supreme Court, weigh in on about 20 cases a year in which the federal government has a strong interest. The justices generally give greater weight to what he or she says than other third parties that take a side in a c…

> Question: what the fuck?

American here.

We are aware of the problem, but due to high call volume and a totally corrupt/captured/entrenched corporate & government bureaucracy, you may experience long wait times.

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#116

Post by bediger4000 »

rayiner wrote: post #110
bediger4000 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "IP"? If it's "intellectual property" that strikes me (a non-lawyer) as a particularly vague and ill-defined concept. I personally find the idea of owning an idea to be risible: historically, important things have been invented or discovered multiple times, sometimes clearly independently. So, why should I as a citizen finance some monopolies that will be economically detrimental to me and to soci…

I mean "IP" in the broadest sense. The iPhone is "designed by Apple in California" but everything is "made in China." Whatever information flows from California to China to enable that is IP. As to your second point: having a monopoly over a thing is different than having a monopoly over a market. All property rights are state-supported monopolies. The essence of trade is exchange of monopoly rights as to things. So…

Whatever information flows from California to China to enable that is IP.

Congratulations, you've just blurred the issue beyond repair. Now, not only do I have no idea what "IP" is, other than some vague "information" (bits and bytes? phrases on paper? verbal instructions? URLs? methods of production?), I have no idea how to tell if some particular piece of information is "stolen" or "not stolen". I have to go ask someone (who?) to check.

My basic contention is that considering ideas or concepts or math as property, warps society beyond what most of us would like, and therefore, we should do away with the concept of "IP". We'll have to figure out something other than an "IP regime" to create appropriate incentives, but the possible disincentives from just about any "IP regime" are too bad to actually implement those "IP regimes".

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#117

Post by bcg1 »

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" -- Article I, Section 8, US Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...)

This is the exact opposite of promoting progress, and this type of behavior needs to be overturned on constitutional grounds. This is so far beyond what the Constitution authorizes Congress to oversee with respect to patent and copyright law that the specifics of the case are almost meaningless. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that anyone would stop developing APIs or turn them into trade secrets unless they can be copyrighted. 40+ years of sharing and software development prove otherwise.

Time for the Federal Circuit and Justice Department to wake up, or for there to be an investigation into bribery and corruption in East Texas and DC. Preferably both.

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#118

Post by rayiner »

bediger4000 wrote: post #116
rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean "IP" in the broadest sense. The iPhone is "designed by Apple in California" but everything is "made in China." Whatever information flows from California to China to enable that is IP. As to your second point: having a monopoly over a thing is different than having a monopoly over a market. All property rights are state-supported monopolies. The essence of trade is exchange of monopoly rights as to things. So…

Whatever information flows from California to China to enable that is IP. Congratulations, you've just blurred the issue beyond repair. Now, not only do I have no idea what "IP" is, other than some vague "information" (bits and bytes? phrases on paper? verbal instructions? URLs? methods of production?), I have no idea how to tell if some particular piece of information is "stolen" or "not stolen". I have to go ask so…

It's not a blurry concept. If you're a company in China, you've got aluminum and milling machines. You can import PCBs from Taiwan and SOCs from Korea. What else do you need to make an iPhone? The intangible stuff that's made in California: PCB layouts, machining processes and specs, CPU/GPU designs, firmware, software, branding. That's all IP, protected by a web of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and contractual rights.

To tie back to the original point by 'colechristensen: the U.S. is rapidly becoming a country where people spend all day working on products the end result of which is intangible. As production of tangible goods becomes commoditized because of robots and 3D printing, it's going to be the production of intangible goods that's going to give countries' competitive advantages in the global marketplace.

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#119

Post by bmvakili »

Seems ridiculous; my analogy: organization of volume of books; or classification of library; I can use any classification. I can go to Library of Congress; copy they way they organize their books; and implement same in my library. Why can't you do that with Open Source code?

Re: Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

#120

Post by rayiner »

bcg1 wrote: post #114
rayiner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. Unless "method of operation" is some godforsaken legalistic bastardization of the language, APIs are methods of operation, not a description. In Java you must use those exact symbols to use the software... the description would be the documentation and Javadoc comments about the code, which I agree could certainly be eligible for copyright protection

Walking is a method of operation. A video of someone walking, or a story about someone walking is a tangible description, not the method of operation itself.

The concept of a function with the name cupcake that takes an integer and returns an integer is different than the description "int cupcake(int x)." The interoperability aspect is a red herring--there is no right to interoperate.

Post reply on HN