Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

Post by VikingCoder » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:15 PM UTC

flyingfences wrote: post #260

VikingCoder wrote: post #178

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…

> Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. I would say that they are not so much trying to ignore the fact as acknowledging the fact but taking the position that it the court's role to interpret the implementation, not to guess at the intent.

Post by galphanet » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

nullifidian wrote: post #407

teruakohatu wrote: post #7

> "Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of declaring code from the API, which amounts to virtually all the declaring code needed to call up hundreds of different tasks. Those 11,500 lines, however, are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.86 million total lines. In considering “the amount and substantiality of the portion used” in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed as…

An alternative take, which I'm sure won't be popular, is that now, with an interpretation taken to the extreme, a megаcorporation can basically steal your (let's say a small startup's) platform (in case you refuse to sell it for ethical or some other reasons), by re-implementing it and investing much more resources which you don't have, to make it more attractive to customers. I'm ok with either decision, but, depend…

Post by gyc » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

abhv wrote: post #21

Which of Breyer's clerks drafted this? They clearly understand many tech issues and I hope they find their place on some Federal circuit to herald an era of logic in tech law. "Google’s limited copying of the API is a transformative use. Google copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different computing environment without discarding a portion of a familiar programming language. Google’s purpose…

Post by dundarious » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:17 PM UTC

Boxxed wrote: post #226

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

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…

> 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. Speak for yourself. There are plenty of us that understand you can't take the human element out of this.

Post by simiones » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:18 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #179

luckylion wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you copyright generated things? You probably could copyright the way you're generating it, but I doubt you have a legal standing about the generated text or melody itself.

My understanding is no. Copyright requires human authorship (the case of the monkey selfie found it to be public domain because a monkey did it, e.g.), and code written by a machine is likely to follow similar precedent and be uncopyrightable.