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

CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 189 posts

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#31

Post by stuartleigh »

taspeotis wrote: post #25
Morgawr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a period between those sentences. The "In 2012..." is related to "...a judge ruled that APIs can't be copyrighted at all". I don't know when Oracle bought Sun (didn't look it up), but this is not what the sentence(s) is(are) implying.

The relevant sentences are: The lawsuit began when Oracle sued Google in 2010 over its use of 37 Java APIs, which Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems. In 2012, a judge ruled that APIs can't be copyrighted at all, but an appeals court disagreed. Not sure what confusion could arise from this.

If you miss the period it reads as "... which Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems in 2012," which I guess would be confusing.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#32

Post by Aleman360 »

Not sure if I agree. I find that coming up with good interfaces is often more of a creative challenge than the implementation. API's are worthy of some sort of protection since ease of use is a definite competitive advantage.

Also, you can easily screw your perf with bad interfaces (especially in C++). E.g., not templatizing, requiring extra allocations, type impedance mismatches, vtable bloat, etc. The interface certainly affects how the machine executes your code.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#33

Post by deciplex »

oneloop wrote: post #3

Oooooo shit. Isn't this phrase horrible? Don't get me wrong, I think suing over checkRange is ludicrous... but doesn't saying "declaring code isn't code" terrible? He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words. Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE".

It's not that terrible:

> "Declaring the title of a book is not writing a book"

I think you can make a reasonable analogy there.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#34

Post by adrianN »

Maarten88 wrote: post #8
d_j_b wrote: post #4

"For me, declaring code is not code," Page said. This sentence sounds pretty odd to me. What does Larry Page mean?

I think he means header files compile to nothing, they do not end up as actual computer instructions. They only serve to help programs call the actual implementations (which he'll see as the real code) correctly.

So fancy type-level assertions that prove the correctness of your program are also not code? That's a weak argument.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#35

Post by Aleman360 »

deciplex wrote: post #33
oneloop wrote: post #3

Oooooo shit. Isn't this phrase horrible? Don't get me wrong, I think suing over checkRange is ludicrous... but doesn't saying "declaring code isn't code" terrible? He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words. Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE".

It's not that terrible: > "Declaring the title of a book is not writing a book" I think you can make a reasonable analogy there.

Writing an outline of a book is more analogous.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#37

Post by statictype »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #21

The more I read about this case the more I think Oracle is right. And the more I think most people, HN readers included, are grossly misinformed. In the last big thread I asked if anyone could provide concrete examples of terrible things that would happen if Oracle won. I didn't get a good response but the comment was buried. My question stands if anyone has a good answer. I'm very open to discussion here.

IANAL but it seems like it would set the precedent that you cannot do clean room implementations that are legal.

That would, for example, prevent every browser after Netscape from building javascript into their own browser.

It might have prevented Mono from existing.

It would have prevented Atom and Sublime from being able to use Textmate syntax files.

Are those bad things? I believe they are.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#38

Post by x0x0 »

pritambaral wrote: post #26
forrestthewoods wrote: post #21

The more I read about this case the more I think Oracle is right. And the more I think most people, HN readers included, are grossly misinformed. In the last big thread I asked if anyone could provide concrete examples of terrible things that would happen if Oracle won. I didn't get a good response but the comment was buried. My question stands if anyone has a good answer. I'm very open to discussion here.

If APIs are copyrightable (even when documented and released for free in the open): - Wine and ReactOS would become illegal. In fact, any layer to run Windows apps would become illegal. The only way to run a Windows app would be through Microsoft's blessing That's a pretty big one.

and samba / smb? And no reimplementations of the aws apis to port out of aws.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#39

Post by keypusher »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #21

The more I read about this case the more I think Oracle is right. And the more I think most people, HN readers included, are grossly misinformed. In the last big thread I asked if anyone could provide concrete examples of terrible things that would happen if Oracle won. I didn't get a good response but the comment was buried. My question stands if anyone has a good answer. I'm very open to discussion here.

It's really not about whether bad things would happen or not. It's about what is the correct decision. I define an interface for a box. It has methods push() and pull(). I implement a wooden box that conforms to this interface. Many happy users push and pull my box via the interface all day. Someone comes along and implements a metal box that conforms to my interface, so that users can push and pull a metal box. I sue that person and win. Does this sound correct to you?

What bad things would happen?

* Compiling against any C header files, such as kernel headers, is called into question. This has massive ramifications because of many for-profit businesses that compile against the headers of GPL code, as is standard practice.

* Amazon S3 API is widely implemented by other cloud storage providers. Sharing an API between products makes it easy for customers to switch one application between different providers.

* This is copyright, not patent. Which means there is no requirement to register a design, no oversight and no cost.

* It could cause a rush of people just writing obvious API combinations to be the one who "got there first" and potentially harm their competition.

https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-you-cant...

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#40

Post by valleyer »

metafunctor wrote: post #36

Is it Oracle's position that all implementations of the Java APIs (or partial implementations) are illegal, unless it's specifically allowed by Oracle? That sounds ludicrous. What about unit testing libraries, for example?

This also means that Wine, GNUstep, FreeDOS, etc., are illegal, right?
Post reply on HN