801–810 of 965 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly that. Why do the && in that order? Because isFairUse(workUnderInvestigation) was a much less expensive operation than copyrightable(originalWork) for this particular value of originalWork.
That is the order scotus considered it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 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 b…
CAFC does not have natural jurisdiction over copyright and thus always applies circuit law.
Here, this was also a 3-judge panel of the federal circuit, and en banc review was denied.
Those decisions are already not binding on future 3-judge panels IIRC (it's been a while, honestly), and definitely not binding on the circuits
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Lotus' failure was more because they failed to port to Windows, betting instead on OS/2. Lotus was at a crossroads. DOS was obsolete, was the future OS/2 or Windows? They chose OS/2. Lotus was a big, cash rich company at the time. Their fatal error was not realizing they should have ported 1-2-3 to both OS/2 and Windows. Then they would have been secure regardless of which prevailed.
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…
Wine was not really as much of an organized commercial endeavor so was not as much of a target
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 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 b…
It was zero courts before, too, no? CAFC does not have natural jurisdiction over copyright and thus always applies circuit law. Here, this was also a 3-judge panel of the federal circuit, and en banc review was denied. Those decisions are already not binding on future 3-judge panels IIRC (it's been a while, honestly), and definitely not binding on the circuits
Right, and I think this played an important role in why the Supreme Court ducked API copyrightability; they’d rather not do so absent a binding lower circuit decision, or especially a conflict between circuits, preferring to let the issue percolate (and also provide Congress more time to intervene) of there is another basis dor resolving particular cases with less sweeping impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>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…
This is similar to when federal courts have to apply state law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that specific example, I don't think it would really affect them, since both React and Preact are MIT licensed.
> both React and Preact are MIT licensed. Huh, I had no idea the React license wasn't still "you're free to use React unless you ever assert a patent against Facebook".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing Can you elaborate on that? What does this have to do with those thing?
Google had the option to use the OpenJDK and make Android a GPL-based platform. They did not want to. They could've, and tried to, negotiate a separate license, but simply decided to copy what they wanted instead, relying on their legal team to protect them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect, because as Justice Thomas states, the "heart" of the work being copied is at issue, not a given percentage. Neville Longbottom is obviously not the "heart" of what a Harry Potter book is. Presumably the issue would be if one wrote a book substantially about the same character as Harry Potter who went through the same plot events in significant detail, but only 0.4% of the sentences were identical and the m…
Incorrect, because the "heart" of the work is not being copied, and therefore, the entirety of Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion is just pointless blathering. Thomas would allow copyright on code regardless of any creativity. This would destroy the software industry. Anyone who is first in time would monopolize entire swaths of software functionality. And that is what he wants. Thomas is an ideologue, and his sole g…
This would sound like a convincing position if the company abusing them wasn't a trillionaire corporation. Oracle is literally "the little guy" here.