281–290 of 965 posts
So does this ruling actually mean anything or can Oracle challenge this too somewhere else?
Oracle could launch a new case but it would have to rely on entirely different merits. If Oracle did have such other grounds for a suit, they would have included them in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's literally the next sentence that you intentionally omitted. And I've seen plenty of people paint Oracle as some evil boogeyman like this is some good vs evil struggle. Oracle wasn't trying to make Bad Things happen. They were seeking damages from a damaging situation, and if bad things had happened... I'd blame the patent trolls and judges that enable them. Their insanity continues regardless of the verdict af…
> I've seen plenty of people paint Oracle as some evil boogeyman “Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower.”
But people were upset the lawnmower tried to take the hand at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my code generated-SDK example, a human defined the data model and a human created the code generation algorithm, but an algorithm generated the SDK code itself. So human creativity is involved, but is not the direct creator of the SDKs. Does that count? I am not really sure. I bring up the generated SDK example because I have used just such a system when I worked at a major corporation: I created a data model in W…
IANAL, but: The code generated SDK is a derivative work of the human-defined data model - just like the binary for any piece of software is derivative of the source code. (Otherwise where'd the copyright for the binary come from?) The generator's copyright (or the compiler's) doesn't directly flow in. (But if the generator/compiler incorporates pieces of itself, like a support library, that does. Also, the generator/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm normally with the textualists on the court on the question of how we interpret the law, but in the case of copyright, the concept of "fair use" is specifically intended as an "extension point" where the courts could do what seemed right in changing circumstances. I like strongly typed languages too, but there are legitimate uses for void*.
That's a very good summary. This is a case where there probably is no legally "correct" decision based on the law/precedent. It comes down to fair use and to what degree you can reasonably extend it to this case. For most people reading this, the decision is the "right" one. But I'm not sure to what degree one side or the other is better supported as a matter of law/precedent.
It's interesting reading Thomas' dissent. As per typical Thomas appears to be arguing that it's the letter of the law that matters, whereas it's the majority opinion that the motivations and substance of the law are primary. Hackers and programmers tend to try and read the law like computer code to be "hacked" and exploited based on the letter of the law. So you'd expect us to be more sympathetic to Thomas' view. So…
Thomas's analysis pretty much starts from the conclusion that Google made billions off of Android, so therefore how could anything it be copied be fair use? He cloaks this analysis somewhat by arguing that the distinction between declaring and implementing code must be meaningless because Congress didn't lay it out explicitly in law, but for the person who actually broached the question of what other factors might in…
From the dissent: > The Copyright Act expressly protects computer code. It recognizes that a “computer program” is protected by copyright... And it defines “‘computer program’” as “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.” §101. That definition clearly covers declaring code—sets of statements that indirectly perform computer function…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upvoted because you shouldn't be downvoted into oblivion just for having an opinion contrary to the HN hivemind. It's okay to think Oracle should have won here. I disagree, but there are reasonable people on both sides.
In thought Oracle should have won this case as well and the opinion basically affirmed the reasoning but went the other way. The basis for Oracle winning was that copying the Java API for interoperability with developers rather than for existing software was copying for Java’s beauty rather than being purely functional. Whenever this case came up on HN people outright refused to acknowledge that one’s intentions even…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, when the code allows an exploit, that's a bug. Thomas is supposed to help us understand the intent of the code - what the Requirement was. Yes, it's better for us if the code reflects the intent perfectly. But to the degree that's not possible, we need someone to Interpret the code. Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. The Legislature should do a f…
Tangent, but you said something I find really telling, in conjunction with OP's post. Textualism to its proponents is very much like exploiting a system; figuring out the exact rules it defines and finding workarounds. It may not even be to a person's own goals (hence the individual not feeling biased when thinking this way), but is enjoyable in its own right in finding those loopholes (like the meme of the referee a…
The wholesale expropriation of an API is not the same thing as taking a small snippet of a copyrighted work for analysis, commentary, criticism, or scholarship. It is core the value of the work.
Indeed, it's the most important part, because it defines the functionality of the product. It is what the customer sees and interacts with. It is the means by which the customer gets value. You can completely swap out the backend behind the API and the customer will still get value. Change the API and the value goes away.
From a legal perspective, this decision is 100% wrong. The plain language of the law makes that clear.
What should have happened here is that Congress should have passed an amendment to copyright law allowing for fair use of an API. They should have done so after a free and full debate, with due consideration to all economic consequences.
It is not for our black-robed, un-elected overlords to make this decision.