581–590 of 771 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Schwartz's beliefs and statements don't apply. Schwartz didn't write the controlling law.
Schwartz's was the CEO of the company that held the "copyright" should one exist at the time of the alleged "infringement" Thus Schwartz's beliefs are and should be relevant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the court breaking down?
Kind of, yeah. Supreme court justices aren't elected, are appointed for life, and collectively have veto power over basically any law, should they choose to break (or gradually discard) historical norms. I think it's telling that neither Biden nor Harris was willing to rule out court-packing at the presidential debates, and at this point I think they're right to leave it on the table! But, it really would mark the be…
The correct answer to that question was obviously, "Congress makes the laws, including ones about the number of SC justices, not the President."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, going back to the max() function example: I believe, based on the way the courts are looking at it, that the parts that are essential to its function are the fact that it takes two numbers and returns the greater of the two, and perhaps also the fact that it is named "max". Its being placed into class named java.lang.Math, though, is not. That is a product of the way it is arranged, which is a matter of design, n…
> It's hard to imagine any particular reason why a function would need to have "java" in its name in order correctly calculate the maximum of two numbers. That's not the full scope of it's function, at least in a technical sense. It's also meant to be a utility system-level method and in Java standard library utility methods follow a certain organizational scheme so as to designate their system-level status. This sta…
I think the key word in your argument is 'implies' and you didn't use the word 'requires'. If the authors of the API are implying the nature of these sets of functions by organizing them under 'system', they are doing so to convey information and an opinion as to the nature of the function. The fact that java.system.out is STDOUT, could be also put into java.io or java.system.unix.out, java.logging.out etc. The 'system' is arbitrary, its not 'required'. For example, the out function does not inspect its package name to determine that this out file outputs to STDERR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DNC would be center right in Saudi Arabia? By what metric? What is with the ridiculous hyperbole that's so common when talking about America on the internet, especially by non-Americans? Talk about "American exceptionalism" - just in a different way.
If the House of Saud tried to impose Obamacare there would be a revolt.
I'm not sure why so many people here seem to be surprised by this, I got the exact same impression from the hearing. The problem for Google on the copyrightability front is that "compilations" of non-copyrightable items can be copyrightable even if the underlying items themselves are not, if the "selection, coordination, or arrangement" of those items involves sufficient creativity to be considered an "original work…
> As is common when HN discusses legal matters I see a lot of people blaming the judges for not understanding tech, but the problem here isn't really the judges so much as the law itself. Or to state it more plainly: the problem is legislators not understanding tech, and not updating our laws to account for the way computers and the internet have transformed society over the last 40 years. This was a similar gripe in…
I have no issue with updating (or even replacing) the Communications Act of 1934, since much has changed in the last 24 years (the last time the act was updated).
But claiming that the Communications Act of 1934[0] originally enacted in 1934, is a public utility law that's over 80 years old isn't accurate.
In fact, has been repeatedly modified and updated, the last time in 1996.
You could certainly argue that 1996 was a long time ago too (almost 25 years), but arguing that the law applied was, in its entirety, 80+ years old is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...
Edit: Fixed typos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the recipe analogy, I would say that the API would be the books table of contents. The recipes themselves are the implementation. So the question is, should the book’s toc be copyrightable? That is, is it lawful to write another book with the exact same toc, but with different recipes/implementations...
A ToC doesn't actually work like an API. A ToC cares what order it's in. You can't move Chapter 4 to before Chapter 2 or the implementation has to change. By contrast, the order of functions within a class, or classes within a package, isn't really part of the API -- they're most often in alphabetical order, which is totally mechanistic, and changing the order doesn't change the API. A ToC is also not a rigid formal…
> A ToC cares what order it's in. You can't move Chapter 4 to before Chapter 2 or the implementation has to change.
This isn't true.
Table of Contents
Foreword.................i
Introduction............ii
Preface................xvi
Chapter 1................1
Chapter 2...............17
Chapter 3...............30
Chapter 4...............51
Chapter 5...............58
Chapter 6...............76
Table of Contents
Foreword.................i
Introduction............ii
Preface................xvi
Chapter 4...............51
Chapter 1................1
Chapter 2...............17
Chapter 3...............30
Chapter 5...............58
Chapter 6...............76
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the vast majority of tech companies disagree with the law, and were probably expecting SCOTUS to overturn the case. When they realize that they're leaving money on the table, then we're going to see claims and counterclaims all over the place.
well it would be funny if amazon starts to sue oracle. https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Task... I mean even the freaking headers are the same which some could consider an implementation detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Alito's not unreasonable to suggest that a Supreme Court ruling in Google's favor might raise difficult questions about how copyright law applies to software in general. Which in of itself is a long avoided question that sorely needs to be addressed.
And should be addressed by the legislature, not the judiciary.