131–140 of 771 posts
>Oracle, for example, re-implemented Amazon's S3 API so that customers who built software for Amazon's cloud platform could easily switch to Oracle's rival cloud platform. So if Oracle wins here, they will get fu xx ed by Amazon?
This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere. If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters…
>>"that the conservative majority is predisposed to treat everything as property..." This is misleading at best. For example: RBG, despite her left-leaning reputation, was easily one of, if not the , most pro-copyright and pro-IP justices on the bench. (Relatedly, she also was pretty pro big business, which rarely fits the portrayed narrative.) Not all areas of law, especially at the Supreme Court level, easily trans…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That would probably be considered fair use. Why would that be considered fair use, and Google's not be? As far as I can tell it's exactly the same situation.
Google wasn't interested in interoperability. A big part of why they allegedly walked away from Java licensing was Oracle wanted Android to actually run Java apps, and Google wanted to basically fork off, but just benefit from the developer community around the Java language.
This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere. If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters…
That's not really the court's responsibility. There is no legal definition of "interface" or "implementation". They're just trying to interpret a gray area in the law and it could come down either way. Any real solution will have to be legislated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The standard library is owned by the people creating it, and of course your work using the standard library is a derived work of that standard library. For example, glibc is owned by GNU, and it is licensed under the LGPL, so you are allowed to dynamically link it without having to release your own code under the GPL (or compatible). This is all happening today. The only projects that will be more seriously affected…
But now if I write my own libc implementation, someone (who?) could come after me for violating their copyright on the libc api.
That's an interesting question. Perhaps K&R? Or maybe their employer? Or perhaps by now the copyright may be with ANSI/ISO?
But this does raise an interesting point, about who would own copyright on something that was not believed to be copyrightable for much of its history.
This is not good...not good at all! If Oracle wins, to me with zero knowledge around copyright laws and legalese topics, means small to medium companies will close down out of fear of getting sued for using or implementing a competitor's APIs. Not only that, it feels like the whole technological "civilization" will collapse after this and I'm not exaggerating, because thousands of people will lose their job simply be…
> "Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun."
> "'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software. 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people...we wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as possible.'"
I feel like I would raise this fact repeatedly, if i was trying to make my case.
Oracle themselves are doing it, could someone with a better legal mind explain to me how this doesn't make the case simpler to decide?
Is it that they're saying, it should be illegal but since it is not we are playing the game by the current rules, but we hope to change those rules?
> Jonathan Schwartz's (CEO of Sun when Google re-implemented the Java APIs): > "Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun." > "'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software. 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people...we wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as pos…