721–730 of 965 posts
If I find a service that provides and API and I want the existing developers (customers) who use the service to be able to use a competitive service and the original API is re-created in order to provide compatibility with the second service. Is this OK?
The original API is part of a commercial service, the re-created API will be a commercial service, but not the entire service just a compatibility layer.
Thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The human still made the decision to place the camera just so. You're not travelling through enough layers of intentionality.
Which human? The installer or the owner of the equipment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should it have been evaluated first? I understand the intuition you're getting at: logically, the first question could make the second irrelevant. But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question?
IANAL, but I can imagine something like the following: A. We decide this is fair use based on the small number of LOC used and call it a day B. OR we can decide that APIs are not copyrightable even though they're self-evidently creative works because of the importance of interoperability based on something something related to Borland v. Lotus, a case that we couldn't agree on the last time it came up. Hey folks. Let…
In an earlier concurring opinion when he was on the D.C. Circuit — i.e., before joining the Supreme Court as Chief Justice of the United States (his official title) — John Roberts referred to "... the cardinal principle of judicial restraint — if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more ...." [0]
[0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=192785774326304...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but Thomas said "The majority can not square it's fundamentally flawed fair-use analysis with a finding that declaring code is copyrightable". Which is obviously false. A fair use analysis can -only- take place if the assumption is the code is copyrightable; if the majority had first decided the code was not copyrightable, fair use is immaterial. Thomas' argument, if followed, would either have led to this same…
Over the years, the STEM professional in me has become increasingly intrigued by the ways in which law progresses because it is so fundamentally different from my preferred method of making sense of the world. Within that, and with my incredibly limited understanding of how law evolves in the courts...it seems like Thomas says demonstrably incorrect things more frequently than I am comfortable with.
While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use: > To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on…
While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. It is even less decisive than you're saying. The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are. And for fair use, one of…
No, it doesn’t. Because the Court expressly declined to examine the question, the CAFC decision is binding only where it would have been without the Supreme Court decision, i.e., those courts bound by the CAFC’s interpration of how Ninth Circuit law applies. As it turns out, that is exactly zero courts.
The reason the Supreme Court often likes to find the narrowest grounds possible for a decision is to avoid making more binding case law than is called for; giving the lower court rulings on all questions not addressed (including those the Supreme Court explicitly avoids) the same binding effect as the actual Supreme Court holding would defeat the purpose, and it is very much not how things work.
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.
Sometimes I fantasize about generating methods for creating copyrights, such that you can copyright the process of creating the copyright - for the commmunity, obviously. However, they explicitly forbid that, unfortunately. If only it worked, you could file a claim for anyone that created a copyright to your disliking, given that you probably make strong stance. While I'm at it, in a similar vein though entirely unre…
And IANAL, but I think that strategy could fall under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With what I know of Amy Coney Barrett, I’m very surprised she had no part in this decision. You did an absolutely wonderful job of explaining her whole feeling on the bench in two paragraphs. Seriously friend, that’s some excellent writing - excellent excellent job!!
The case was argued weeks before Barrett was confirmed to the court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are. Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. As it does not have original jurisdiction in copyright disputes (only patent cases), it doesn't supercede any copyrightabili…
Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. No, not only 9th circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding nationwide. And if the case includes claims about patents and/or trademarks, even if those specific claims are thrown out, then the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit becomes the court that the case is appealed to. Which is how this particular case wound up there…
Not even the 9th Circuit. For cases arising from thr 9th Cir., 9th Cir. case law binds the CAFC, not the other way around, on issues that are outside ofnthe subject-matter for which the CAFC has nationwide jurisdiction.
> The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding nationwide
No, it’s decisions are only binding nationwide on the issues within its special jurisdiction, which copyright is not. On other issues, it is instead bound by the case law of the circuit that would otherwise be responsible for the case, and notionally is just an interpreter of that circuit's case law. It’s decisions on those collateral matters on cases brought before it because they also touch on one of the issues reserved to the CAFC aren’t binding on any other court.
Constitutional issues are somewhat of a mix of the political and legal. SCOTUS tries to be apolitical, but by its nature it can override Congress on Constitutional matters, and therefore it's at least somewhat political.
But cases like this are legal. Political credit and blame for this decision should go to Congress, not SCOTUS.
Of course, those interested in the legal process itself may give credit or blame to the justices for their legal positions.
This marks jurisprudence