Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that terrible: > "Declaring the title of a book is not writing a book" I think you can make a reasonable analogy there.
Writing an outline of a book is more analogous.
How about "table of contents"?
CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
91–100 of 189 posts
Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
#92Not sure if I agree. I find that coming up with good interfaces is often more of a creative challenge than the implementation. API's are worthy of some sort of protection since ease of use is a definite competitive advantage. Also, you can easily screw your perf with bad interfaces (especially in C++). E.g., not templatizing, requiring extra allocations, type impedance mismatches, vtable bloat, etc. The interface cer…
Are APIs/interfaces patentable?
Patents (20 year monopoly) would actually be less restrictive than copyrights (95 years)
Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
#93Can someone elucidate how these trials have access to internal email exchanges?
Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well in the court a lot of theatrics are in play because of their effect on certain questions/answers
Which is why I am against trials with jury. Professional judges are much less likely to fall for lawyer's "bullshiting skill".
That seems like a stretch. Judges routinely make questionable rulings. Heck, in this case Alsup did a great job in the first (jury) trial .... and then Oracle appealed and the original decision, which I thought was right, was overturned by judges.
Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the juror can't understand the distinction between declaration and implementation, then he is not fit for this particular case. Isn't it smart of him to make that point explicit?
He made the distinction extremely poorly. And jurors are not expected to be experts in anything. It's the lawyers' job to make the case to people who are not experts.
In fact, jurors are instructed not to make use of any particular expertise they might have, and instead to rely only on testimony heard during the trial.
Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
#96Is 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?
Well, even though I don't like Oracle's standpoint here, I still feel that often the design of an API is much more work than the implementation of it. Implementing something is often just doing "the logical thing", whereas designing an API requires a lot of trial and error, and planning. An API describes in a way the greater design of the system (how things connect together), whereas an implementation is just filling…
It might be hard but is it creative enough to warrant a copyright ?
That said, Google should have licensed Java when the good guys were around. Now they are dealing with bloodsuckers :)
Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
#97Earlier 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.
Of course code declarations are "code" the same way a library listing of book titles is made up of "words". Unique, creative words that cannot be explained by chance or well known to the audience before their creation by the author. Yet, none should be protected by copyright, this is the intention of "is not code".
Your example is a good one because it is established law that book titles can't be copyrighted.
Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
#98Is 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 am far from an expert in these matters, but as I understand it there are fair use exemptions when the purpose of the implementation is for interoperability and compatibility. Given WINE's purpose, they would seem to be on safer ground.
I believe this was one of Google's initial arguments, but as the DoJ stated when they weighed in:
>"The Android platform uses the Java programming language, but [Google] purposely designed Android not to be compatible with the Java platform or interoperable with Java programs." [1]
[1] http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/05/us-dept-of-justice-finds-...
Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
#99Oracle already won a case that deemed APIs copyrightable. Which is bad for the industry at large. Except for Oracle and patent trolls off course. Google is now arguing whether it copied code in a fair way or not. They can't argue that they didn't copy anymore because they have already lost that case.
What is happening now is more like proving to your lecturer that you didn't copy your whole assignment from Wikipedia. You only extracted some information from it and majority are your own.
Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”
#100Oooooo 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.
See Java & JavaScript ;)