21–30 of 344 posts
Who has better connections with Trump? Sadly to say, that is not an irrelevant fact anymore. Trump is clearly the kind of president that would reach in to legal rulings he's paid not to like.
Edit:
Got hellbanned lol.
@gregnoire:
HN is a giant circlejerk
You prolly think this site is so great and intellectual just because it has ycombinator in the URL. Internet comments fundamentally suck
@DanBC:
Pretty sure I got hellbanned. It's been an hour, still can't make new comments
@sjwright:
The medium is the message. Text typed on a psuedo-anonymous HTML page never leads to substantial discussion. This was obvious back in 2000s but I guess since the internet has regressed so much, most people turn a blind eye to it. Fuck, honestly, why am I even writing this? This is hypocrisy in its biggest form. I need to stop writing in these stupid comment sections
Is Oracle the biggest troll in Silicon Valley right now? Can't think of anyone else that would claim the title. Maybe Theranos.
Okay, either I'm crazy or everyone else is. Assuming the court isn't trying to set a new precedent with regards to software it seems like Oracle should have easily won this case. There is an argument to be made that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable but surely it's not fair use -- Google's use of Java doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria.
There's far more at stake than Oracle trying to squeeze money out of Google.
Okay, either I'm crazy or everyone else is. Assuming the court isn't trying to set a new precedent with regards to software it seems like Oracle should have easily won this case. There is an argument to be made that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable but surely it's not fair use -- Google's use of Java doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria.
But I believe the API signature itself (function name, argument types, return type) should not be copyrightable, in the interests of the industry as a whole. Google didn't steal the implementation, they just reused the same function signatures to make their drop-in replacement of the JVM work with existing software.
If developers can't even have the API signature without being sued, you are seriously hurting competition. It's just reality.
Okay, either I'm crazy or everyone else is. Assuming the court isn't trying to set a new precedent with regards to software it seems like Oracle should have easily won this case. There is an argument to be made that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable but surely it's not fair use -- Google's use of Java doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria.
This is tricky because if you declare any API no matter how trivial copyrightable then the first guy to copyright a function to compute sqrt, tan, atan, etc wins. And if you can't copyright trivial interfaces then the question becomes where the line is drawn. There's far more at stake than Oracle trying to squeeze money out of Google.
The fair use decision was wrong. It relied on a fundamental misunderstanding of the term transformative where the use of the code was considered rather than merely the implementation. So Oracle has a huge case here.
Moreover, practically it doesn't matter. Even if fair use is established in this case, the door has been left wide open to hordes of API copyright trolls. If you thought patent trolls were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.
If you care about the economy, the only sensible outcome would be that API surfaces aren't subject to copyright. Sadly the horse has bolted a long time ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is tricky because if you declare any API no matter how trivial copyrightable then the first guy to copyright a function to compute sqrt, tan, atan, etc wins. And if you can't copyright trivial interfaces then the question becomes where the line is drawn. There's far more at stake than Oracle trying to squeeze money out of Google.
Someone should write a program that generates all possible function names and argument types and declares them copyrighted, then release them all to the public.
Okay, either I'm crazy or everyone else is. Assuming the court isn't trying to set a new precedent with regards to software it seems like Oracle should have easily won this case. There is an argument to be made that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable but surely it's not fair use -- Google's use of Java doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria.
This is tricky because if you declare any API no matter how trivial copyrightable then the first guy to copyright a function to compute sqrt, tan, atan, etc wins. And if you can't copyright trivial interfaces then the question becomes where the line is drawn. There's far more at stake than Oracle trying to squeeze money out of Google.
Is Oracle the biggest troll in Silicon Valley right now? Can't think of anyone else that would claim the title. Maybe Theranos.