81–90 of 189 posts
Doe anyone know why Google decided on a jury trial? It seems they are technically in the right, but explaining it to an educated judge in a bench trial would be a lot easier than a random sample of non-programmers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if this interpretation of his words is what he meant to say. I'd argue that code that "compiles to nothing" can be protected by copyright, too, even if it is not distributed to customers. E.g., extensive documentation inside comments in the source files is definitely copyrighted. Complex build rules might be copyrightable, too, although they definitely end up in the distributed application. Therefore, it…
Google is trying to make the case that interfaces aren't 'code' here. That's the entire case here, right?
Unless that claim about interfaces becomes crucial in some unforeseen way.
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?
I'm going to go out on a limb here. While I'm definitely not on Oracle's side for this case, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that declaring code is not code in general. To me, that's akin to the NSA collecting phone call metadata and then claiming that it's not really a problem because they don't actually have the contents. Except, as we know, with sufficient metadata, you don't even need contents to figur…
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".
> Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE". This doesn't follow, sometimes language does unexpected things. E.g. a dwarf planet isn't a planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE". This doesn't follow, sometimes language does unexpected things. E.g. a dwarf planet isn't a planet.
Yes, because dwarf persons aren't persons, right?
I'm going to go out on a limb here. While I'm definitely not on Oracle's side for this case, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that declaring code is not code in general. To me, that's akin to the NSA collecting phone call metadata and then claiming that it's not really a problem because they don't actually have the contents. Except, as we know, with sufficient metadata, you don't even need contents to figur…
If I declare my api uses
a GET to /user/:id to get a user, does that interfere with someones copyright that has an api that uses a GET to /user/:id to get a user (everyone I think)?
This is just a declaration. The actual code is buried in the methods and means that actually GET the user.
This is not quite what is going on with this trial, but it's a very simplistic version. If we can't use the same declared API end points, then it will be much worse than patent trolls.
Tim
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he means that the code that doesn't do anything, just describes the interface between two software components is not a code (that you should be prevented from copying) because of its one to one equivalence with the interface. Describing interface with words is exactly the same as declaring it with code. So such code is nothing more or less than verbal description of the interface (or any other description of…
Does this mean that all code written in pure functional languages is not code, since it does not "do" anything?
I'm going to go out on a limb here. While I'm definitely not on Oracle's side for this case, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that declaring code is not code in general. To me, that's akin to the NSA collecting phone call metadata and then claiming that it's not really a problem because they don't actually have the contents. Except, as we know, with sufficient metadata, you don't even need contents to figur…
Though a ToC can be copyrighted. Imagine the situation of a physics text where there may be only a handful of reasonable ways to break down the information and order it. Would it be reasonable to sue someone for having the same ordering (deliberately in this case), but with the content rewritten from scratch (ideal since Google does have those 9 offending lines).