or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents - Page 4

post #121 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Aren't algorithms copyrightable?

 

That depends on where you live. An algorithm can describe anything from a+b to an incredibly complex ten million loc function.

post #122 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

That depends on where you live. An algorithm can describe anything from a+b to an incredibly complex ten million loc function.

I guess I'm not understanding what an API is if both algorithms and code can be protected but APIs cannot.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #123 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I guess I'm not understanding what an API is if both algorithms and code can be protected but APIs cannot.

 

class Person

  has Name

  has Age

  has Location

  func getName(int which) str

  func getLocation() geoip

 

This sort of thing is pretty much what an API is. Lets say I develop a mobile location library that provides your new app with better location services. My library needs to provide you with various object types you can create, and what attributes and functions they might have (this changes depending on the programming language's features too)

 

The actual code that implements the getLocation function or similar is unrelated to this, because Oracle is not claiming Google copied that. What they are claiming is that by using the same names and data types that the infringement is against the Structure, Sequence and Organisation of the API, ie that the API itself is sufficiently original and substantive to qualify for copyright protection.

 

To a programmer such as myself, this is ridiculous, because as you can see by the class above, very often the names and data types are dictated simply by the obvious or limited technically (a string is a relatively fundamental datatype for any language or API)

 

To make this an even worse case, this is Java, which until Oracle's acquisition was reimplemented seemingly with Sun's explicit blessing and was supposed to be a universal language that could be reimplemented to any other computer by simply using the same, standard API.

 

There's obviously even more complexity when it comes down to the actual arguments in court and the finer points of the law, but from my perspective as a multi platform developer, APIs alone being copyrightable is absolute nonsense.

post #124 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Aren't algorithms copyrightable?

The algorithm itself is an abstract mathematical formula, not something fixed in any tangible medium as required by copyright law. One can't copyright the quicksort algorithm any more than one can copyright a method for multiplying two numbers, or a method for solving a matrix equation. What one can copyright is a particular implementation of an algorithm in code.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 2/16/14 at 1:00pm
post #125 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

What one can copyright is a particular implementation of an algorithm in code. 

That seems tricky since using cubeVolume = pow( xValue, 3); wouldn't be exactly the same as using cubeVolume = xValue * xValue * xValue;. How different would the code have to be to not be considered in violation of the copyright?

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #126 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

I know that no serious developer I have ever met has held that APIs are copyrightable, 

Even if this were true (which it obviously isn't) since when are software developers arbiters of copyright law? 

 

Quote:

 

even less so the SSO of APIs. It's nonsense and I speak as a professional developer.

Calling it nonsense is only admitting you don't understand it.

 
Quote:
Oracle claims that their API structure itself is copyrightable. By duplicating my getTime function with identical arguments and return values, you have infringed on the structure of my API despite not copying any code (if APIs were copyrightable)

 

Nope. You confuse functionality with expression. The functionality is a noncopyrightable element. The original expression in each of the 37 API packages is a copyrightable element. The same functionality can be achieved by a wide variety of original expression written in the code. While the functionality of the Java APIs is not protected, the precise way Sun/Oracle wrote that functionality is. It would only be noncopyrightable if there were only one or a few ways to write that functionality, but the choices were near-infinite. Google copied 7000 lines of declaring code, verbatim. They admit they copied all that code verbatim, it is not in dispute. They want that code not to be copyrightable. The Java API packages could have been written in a million/infinite different ways, but Sun/Google created their own original expression from the infinite possibilities. Google had their own infinity of options for achieving the same functionality, but chose to copy Sun/Oracle's original expression instead. 

post #127 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

Calling it nonsense is only admitting you don't understand it.

 

I explained it in detail above, so please see that reply. I can quote Judge Alsup's summation in which he goes through the legal framework for your answer and disagrees with you. I think it pretty unlikely that ultimately APIs will be covered by copyright, even the SSO. The people on the other side of this fight are Microsoft and Oracle, hardly the bastions of open and fair competition.

post #128 of 206

Alsup's first epic fail is in elevating interoperability, an argument which has occasionally been used for a fair use defense of infringement, to be an excuse to deny copyrightability. He simply made this up. There is no precedent for it, and it's an absurdity that neither the CAFC or SCOTUS are going to seriously entertain. Did you not listen to the oral arguments made at the CAFC hearing? The judges basically all asked the Google lawyer, "WTF is this bullshit?"

 

Alsup's ruling has great appeal for those of a certain open ideology, and he did his best to concoct a theory favoring that point of view. Trouble is it runs against all the established principles and precedent of copyright and isn't going to have any legs beyond the original trial. 

post #129 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

etc.

Curious...
Are you an attorney, and if so specializing in patent law? So many of your posts are painting legal questions in black and white that you leave the impression you have several years of experience with copyright and patent law. Are you claiming there's no question that Google will be found guilty of copyright infringement and subject to a possible injunction?
Edited by Gatorguy - 2/17/14 at 8:57am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #130 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

Alsup's first epic fail is in elevating interoperability, an argument which has occasionally been used for a fair use defense of infringement, to be an excuse to deny copyrightability. He simply made this up. There is no precedent for it, and it's an absurdity that neither the CAFC or SCOTUS are going to seriously entertain. Did you not listen to the oral arguments made at the CAFC hearing? The judges basically all asked the Google lawyer, "WTF is this bullshit?"

 

Alsup's ruling has great appeal for those of a certain open ideology, and he did his best to concoct a theory favoring that point of view. Trouble is it runs against all the established principles and precedent of copyright and isn't going to have any legs beyond the original trial. 

 

I did not listen to the oral arguments and I am not a lawyer nor a US citizen so I am particularly removed from this case. I am speaking only in terms of what is reasonable to a developer. The idea that a relatively simple list of names and attributes gains copyright protection not only over the names but the organisation of the names is ridiculous to me. Such things are mere boilerplate, named as simply and directly as possible. There's certainly an element of creativity at work but it pales in comparison to the actual code that implements a method or any other typically copyrightable expression.

 

There is little benefit to any developer of any ideology from copyright protection of this code. The only benefit is to organisations which are falling back towards patent trolling as a business model. Let's not forget that Sun originally wrote this code and their intentions for it were absolutely clear. Oracle may have gained legal rights over the code through their purchase but even if you are correct this does not mean that such a ruling would be reasonable or correct. I retain some faith in courts to be able to discern this if the law is insufficiently precise and it does seem like the courts are given leeway to rule here.

post #131 of 206
If APIs are found to be copyrightable, wouldn't the whole concept of a software compatibility layer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility_layer) be on shaky legal ground? After all, a compatibility layer is nothing but a clean-room implementation of a foreign API. Could Linux or the BSDs be in legal trouble for reimplementing the Unix API? If the GPL copyright protections extended to APIs, would commercial implementations of Linux APIs be considered derivative works and therefore also be subjected to the GPL?

Edited by d4NjvRzf - 2/17/14 at 10:13am
post #132 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post


Even if the Appeals Court finds API's to ultimately be available for copyright protection it doesn't mean Google or anyone else is automatically infringing by using any of them. Then the question of Fair Use has to be considered. For example there's no doubt that literary works are protected by copyright. At the same time it's perfectly legal to quote snippets, even fairly large excerpts, from a book or article in offered web search results, reviews or reports. That's what just happened with the Author's Guild, Google and their academic partners.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #133 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Curious...
Are you an attorney, and if so specializing in patent law? 

Nope, this discussion is about Copyright law.

 

Quote:
Are you claiming there's no question that Google will be found guilty of copyright infringement

There is no question that Google has _already_ been found guilty of copyright infringement for the 37 Java APIs. Judge Alsup let Google off the hook by saying, post-trial, that APIs are not copyrightable. If the appeals court overrules him, as it seems will happen given their reactions to oral arguments, then Google will be back on the hook for infringing Java. That is all fact.

 

Once the appeals court finds that APIs are copyrightable (for the same reasons all other original expression is copyrightable), then the CAFC will either rule on fair use themselves, or send the case back to District Court for a new trial to determine the fair use question, and if necessary, damages.

 

Google still has a chance to be found not guilty by reason of fair use. But if they lose on fair use too (either by the CAFC or a new jury), then yes, Oracle will have all the grounds they need for an injunction against Android, first in the US and then round the globe by international copyright treaties. It is a very real possibility.

post #134 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

I did not listen to the oral arguments and I am not a lawyer nor a US citizen so I am particularly removed from this case. I am speaking only in terms of what is reasonable to a developer. 

What you really mean is developers who share your ideology about restricting copyright's relationship to software. I'm sure the developers responsible for .NET or iOS APIs, as well as many smaller and independent developers have a very different idea of what's reasonable for them. 

 
Quote:
The idea that a relatively simple list of names and attributes gains copyright protection not only over the names but the organisation of the names is ridiculous to me. Such things are mere boilerplate, named as simply and directly as possible. There's certainly an element of creativity at work but it pales in comparison to the actual code that implements a method or any other typically copyrightable expression.

The 37 Java API packages are nothing like a simple list of names and attributes. If they were it would have been trivial for Google to come up with their own. Instead they copied the Java declaring code verbatim for the sole purpose of hijacking Java developers. You believe declaring code and implementing code should be treated differently by copyright law, which is nonsense since they must work together and require each other. In any case copyright law says all original expression is protected, it doesn't value one form of expression more than another. Original expression _is_ the creative element that's protected, copyright doesn't protect the methods or functions. Pretending this is about extending copyright protection to methods or functions is intellectually dishonest.

 

Quote:
There is little benefit to any developer of any ideology from copyright protection of this code. 

Nonsense. you are merely spouting anticopyright dogma.

 

Quote:
 The only benefit is to organisations which are falling back towards patent trolling as a business model. Let's not forget that Sun originally wrote this code and their intentions for it were absolutely clear. 
 

Sun's business model was licensing their APIs. It's how they made their money. Funny you should forget that.

 

Oracle may have gained legal rights over the code through their purchase but even if you are correct this does not mean that such a ruling would be reasonable or correct. I retain some faith in courts to be able to discern this if the law is insufficiently precise and it does seem like the courts are given leeway to rule here.

You're amazingly optimistic if you think the US Courts share your anticopyright ideology.

post #135 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

I'm sure the developers responsible for .NET or iOS APIs, as well as many smaller and independent developers have a very different idea of what's reasonable for them. 

I haven't heard anyone up in arms about the existence of Mono, the clean-room implementation of the .NET APIs which has been around for many years. Microsoft hasn't made any noise. I think the notion that one can prevent others from reimplementing an API, even if they write their own source code, is quite foreign to the software community. Back when SCO was suing IBM and Novell over Linux, the copyright lawsuit was over the actual source code. SCO didn't try to claim appropriation of the Unix API.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 2/17/14 at 7:16pm
post #136 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

I haven't heard anyone up in arms about the existence of Mono, the clean-room implementation of the .NET APIs which has been around for many years. Microsoft hasn't made any noise. 

Why would they? Microsoft made CLI an open standard in order to make projects like Mono possible. If MS hadn't wanted to do that, there would be no Mono today. Different companies employ different business models around their APIs. 

post #137 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Nope, this discussion is about Copyright law.

There is no question that Google has _already_ been found guilty of copyright infringement for the 37 Java APIs. Judge Alsup let Google off the hook by saying, post-trial, that APIs are not copyrightable. If the appeals court overrules him, as it seems will happen given their reactions to oral arguments, then Google will be back on the hook for infringing Java. That is all fact.

Once the appeals court finds that APIs are copyrightable (for the same reasons all other original expression is copyrightable), then the CAFC will either rule on fair use themselves, or send the case back to District Court for a new trial to determine the fair use question, and if necessary, damages.

Google still has a chance to be found not guilty by reason of fair use. But if they lose on fair use too (either by the CAFC or a new jury), then yes, Oracle will have all the grounds they need for an injunction against Android, first in the US and then round the globe by international copyright treaties. It is a very real possibility.

So you don't have a law degree then and no special insight to add? Then you must be depending on the same Mueller article I and many others read for your view of how things will proceed. Your comments seem to mirror his for the most part. IMO Fair Use seems to have a good chance of succeeding if it comes to that as most of the original jurors reportedly found in Google favor on that question in the first trial.
Edited by Gatorguy - 2/18/14 at 4:54am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #138 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

Why would they? Microsoft made CLI an open standard in order to make projects like Mono possible. If MS hadn't wanted to do that, there would be no Mono today. Different companies employ different business models around their APIs. 

 

Right but you misrepresent Sun's business model. They did not license the APIs. In fact they operated very similarly to Mono in this case. Please, tell me who benefits from having the API structure copyrightable? No small developer is going to benefit here as there need only be one prior example and it need not be registered as copyrighted. Therefore literally any developer using any organisation of an API (so most developers) could be liable with absolutely no way to even research it beforehand.

 

I get the feeling you are not a developer as you think this is ideological rather than pragmatic.

post #139 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

Why would they? Microsoft made CLI an open standard in order to make projects like Mono possible. If MS hadn't wanted to do that, there would be no Mono today. Different companies employ different business models around their APIs. 

From what I gather, the CLI only describes the C# language and runtime environment, not the .NET libraries that happen to be written using the CLI:

 

"The Mono project provides an open source C# compiler, a complete open source implementation of the Common Language Infrastructure including the required framework libraries as they appear in the ECMA specification, and a nearly complete implementation of the Microsoft proprietary .NET class libraries up to .NET 3.5. " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)#Implementations)

 

If you don't like the Mono example, what about Wine, the reimplementation of the Windows API which has certainly not been endorsed by MS? It has been around for twenty years and I'm not aware of any legal action against it. In fact, it's used in several major software projects, such as Oracle's own Virtualbox (https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/2940) as well as Parallels (http://wiki.winehq.org/Parallels). My point is that until this Oracle case the software community has always considered copyright to protect source code, and has treated an API as merely a set of specifications. If the specifications themselves were considered copyright protected, all those alternative implementations of Unix, such as GNU/Linux and the BSDs, probably wouldn't exist today.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 2/18/14 at 8:26am
post #140 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So you don't have a law degree then and no special insight to add? Then you must be depending on the same Mueller article I and many others read for your view of how things will proceed. Your comments seem to mirror his for the most part. IMO Fair Use seems to have a good chance of succeeding if it comes to that as most of the original jurors reportedly found in Google favor on that question in the first trial.

I don't think you can lift copywrited material verbatim and imbed it into your works. It's not a review or critique.
post #141 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I don't think you can lift copywrited material verbatim and imbed it into your works. It's not a review or critique.

 

It's a misleading view. Let's say I wrote a book on cats. I label each chapter with the name of the major cat species I am dealing with, include some brief details on their geographic distribution and add a few major categories in to distinguish one cat group from another.

 

Now, another person produces a book that is completely different from my book other than chapter names and organisation.

 

Is this really copyright infringement? There is clearly some creativity that goes into putting together a list of cats, but it's pretty damn limited. Do you think that once I have organised cats in a certain way, that I should gain copyright protection over that particular organisation as well as the names? That is especially ludicrous to me.

post #142 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I don't think you can lift copywrited material verbatim and imbed it into your works. It's not a review or critique.

Here's a pretty recent ruling having to do with Fair Use.
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/11/google-2/

In addition as the previous poster mentions, API's are essentially equivalent to names of chapters in an encyclopedia. Google supposedly didn't use the creative copy that followed the chapter name. They made use of the chapter organization only. How that affects copyright and fair use is still to be decided.
Edited by Gatorguy - 2/18/14 at 10:44am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #143 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO Fair Use seems to have a good chance of succeeding if it comes to that as most of the original jurors reportedly found in Google favor on that question in the first trial.

What's your fair use theory then? That Android is educational?

post #144 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

Right but you misrepresent Sun's business model. They did not license the APIs. In fact they operated very similarly to Mono in this case. Please, tell me who benefits from having the API structure copyrightable? No small developer is going to benefit here as there need only be one prior example and it need not be registered as copyrighted. Therefore literally any developer using any organisation of an API (so most developers) could be liable with absolutely no way to even research it beforehand.

 

I get the feeling you are not a developer as you think this is ideological rather than pragmatic.

Nope, Sun made its money licensing Java APIs, they made their money doing exactly what Google didn't license Java for. 

post #145 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

What's your fair use theory then? That Android is educational?

I'm not an attorney (or developer or even a student of the law) and hardly any more qualified than you to argue law or formulate a legal theory. Anything I would write would simply be parroting something I read on the internet. . . . again same as you. How qualified are our sources? 1wink.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #146 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

If you don't like the Mono example, what about Wine, the reimplementation of the Windows API which has certainly not been endorsed by MS? 

First of all WINE didn't "copy" anything, it's a reverse engineering of the Windows API, and is perfectly legal. WINE went out of its way to avoid any copyright issues.

 

WINE is the perfect example for how one can replicate functionality without copying any code, without even copying the structure, sequence and organization of the Windows API.

 

What WINE did to Windows APIs isn't even remotely like what Google did to Java APIs.

post #147 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Nope, Sun made its money licensing Java APIs, they made their money doing exactly what Google didn't license Java for. 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/28/javaone_code_release/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #148 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

It's a misleading view. Let's say I wrote a book on cats. I label each chapter with the name of the major cat species I am dealing with, include some brief details on their geographic distribution and add a few major categories in to distinguish one cat group from another.

 

Now, another person produces a book that is completely different from my book other than chapter names and organisation.

 

Is this really copyright infringement? There is clearly some creativity that goes into putting together a list of cats, but it's pretty damn limited. Do you think that once I have organised cats in a certain way, that I should gain copyright protection over that particular organisation as well as the names? That is especially ludicrous to me.

All of which has nothing to do with jungmark's comment about fair use.

post #149 of 206

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

Nope, Sun made its money licensing Java APIs, they made their money doing exactly what Google didn't license Java for. 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57420304-94/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-android-didnt-need-license-for-java-apis/

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

All of which has nothing to do with jungmark's comment about fair use.


It has to do with the protected nature of the material itself. Since when does a chapter structure give me copyright on the structure as well as the names?

post #150 of 206
Quote:
 Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Nope, Sun made its money licensing Java APIs, they made their money doing exactly what Google didn't license Java for. 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/28/javaone_code_release/

Yup, Schwartz ran Sun right into the ground with his happy talk.

post #151 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I'm not an attorney (or developer or even a student of the law) and hardly any more qualified than you to argue law or formulate a legal theory. Anything I would write would simply be parroting something I read on the internet. . . . again same as you. How qualified are our sources? 1wink.gif

Only attorneys are allowed to have opinions on or discuss the law?

post #152 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

It's a misleading view. Let's say I wrote a book on cats. I label each chapter with the name of the major cat species I am dealing with, include some brief details on their geographic distribution and add a few major categories in to distinguish one cat group from another.

Now, another person produces a book that is completely different from my book other than chapter names and organisation.

Is this really copyright infringement? There is clearly some creativity that goes into putting together a list of cats, but it's pretty damn limited. Do you think that once I have organised cats in a certain way, that I should gain copyright protection over that particular organisation as well as the names? That is especially ludicrous to me.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm not remembering the details correctly but I though Oracle accused Googs of lifting swaths code instead of just element names.
post #153 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Hmmm. Maybe I'm not remembering the details correctly but I though Oracle accused Googs of lifting swaths code instead of just element names.

 

They accused them of this, but they folded on those claims. The code at issue here is the declarative code which states the names, packages and input/output datatypes of functions. The total number of other lines (the code which actually implements the method) actually 'copied' was 9 (iirc) and they were actually written by the same person by mistake. Oracle agreed to $0 damages for this.

post #154 of 206

Even Judge Alsup said Schwartz's statements had no bearing on Google's lack of a license. That was a DOA argument propagated by those from planet Groklaw.

 

It has to do with the protected nature of the material itself. Since when does a chapter structure give me copyright on the structure as well as the names?

Except no one has copyrighted a chapter structure. Oracle is claiming copyright on the Structure, Sequence, and Organization of the 37 Java API packages. Java's SSO is what makes it unique from the infinite number of other possible Javas achieving the same functionality. 

post #155 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

They accused them of this, but they folded on those claims. The code at issue here is the declarative code which states the names, packages and input/output datatypes of functions. 

Declarative code is still copyrighted code and Google copied over 7000 lines of it verbatim. It's fascinating watching self proclaimed "developers" try and weasel around this fact.

post #156 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

Even Judge Alsup said Schwartz's statements had no bearing on Google's lack of a license. That was a DOA argument propagated by those from planet Groklaw.

The point is that the guy who ran the company that developed this didn't believe Oracle's arguments. You might claim Google needed a license but Sun clearly didn't and I'm definitely going to take their CEOs statements as detailing their corporate position.

 

How exactly is Oracle acting as anything but a troll here?

 

Quote:
Except no one has copyrighted a chapter structure. Oracle is claiming copyright on the Structure, Sequence, and Organization of the 37 Java API packages. Java's SSO is what makes it unique from the infinite number of other possible Javas achieving the same functionality. 

The SSO is a chapter structure. It's a list of categories, subcategories, endpoints and brief metadata about those endpoints. The two are directly analogous. Java's SSO was supposed to be interchangeable in order to make each Java not unique. If each version used a differently named API, then only the core language would be the same. Sun's vision was for Java to be a universal language and that's why they welcomed Android even though it was not identical. The more that was the same the better, Oracle have simply decided that they'll use the courts as a knife to try and cut themselves off a piece of pie.

post #157 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

Declarative code is still copyrighted code and Google copied over 7000 lines of it verbatim. It's fascinating watching self proclaimed "developers" try and weasel around this fact.

 

Until the appeal is ruled in fact it is not copyrightable. That is the current reality of the situation as far as I am aware. Just because you believe it is (or should be) under the letter of the law doesn't mean you can claim that it is currently treated that way.

 

Google did copy this code, because in order to keep the same names (and lets be clear, these are as simple as 'java.util.Date') they are bound by the syntax of the language to using identical statements. That's why the discussion is over the SSO, and forgive me if I am being arrogant but I don't consider 'java.util.Date' to be particularly worthy of copyright even when it is combined into a few thousand declarations.

post #158 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

The point is that the guy who ran the company that developed this didn't believe Oracle's arguments. You might claim Google needed a license but Sun clearly didn't and I'm definitely going to take their CEOs statements as detailing their corporate position.

 

Why was Google negotiating with Sun for a license? No one disputes what Schwartz said. Trouble was it had no legal relevance. 

 

Quote:
 How exactly is Oracle acting as anything but a troll here?

That's just as inflammatory as saying "How exactly is Google acting as anything but a thief here?"

 

Quote:
The SSO is a chapter structure. It's a list of categories, subcategories, endpoints and brief metadata about those endpoints. The two are directly analogous. Java's SSO was supposed to be interchangeable in order to make each Java not unique. If each version used a differently named API, then only the core language would be the same. Sun's vision was for Java to be a universal language and that's why they welcomed Android even though it was not identical. The more that was the same the better, Oracle have simply decided that they'll use the courts as a knife to try and cut themselves off a piece of pie.

That's like saying the Lord of the Rings is _merely_ a list of words, sentences, and paragraphs with brief chapter titles about those paragraphs. Sun's vision for Java was a write-once, run anywhere platform free for anyone to use and and develop while Sun monetized the APIs.

 

Quote:
 Until the appeal is ruled in fact it is not copyrightable. That is the current reality of the situation as far as I am aware. Just because you believe it is (or should be) under the letter of the law doesn't mean you can claim that it is currently treated that way.

You're absolutely right. I don't disagree. Alsup's ruling stands until the Appeals Court overturns it.

 

Quote:
 Google did copy this code, because in order to keep the same names (and lets be clear, these are as simple as 'java.util.Date') they are bound by the syntax of the language to using identical statements. That's why the discussion is over the SSO, and forgive me if I am being arrogant but I don't consider 'java.util.Date' to be particularly worthy of copyright even when it is combined into a few thousand declarations.

 

You want to read Feist. Landmark copyright case about how much creativity is required for copyright protection. The Supreme Court says, "not much!"

post #159 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Only attorneys are allowed to have opinions on or discuss the law?

When the EU Court of Justice (roughly equivalent to SCOTUS) considered the same question of API's and copyright they ruled they were in fact not eligible for copyright protection. It's hardly the clear and obvious copyright infringement a couple of posters may believe it to be. And yes I understand perfectly well that EU law doesn't govern US law.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/eus-top-court-apis-cant-be-copyrighted-would-monopolise-ideas/
Edited by Gatorguy - 2/18/14 at 1:08pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #160 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

First of all WINE didn't "copy" anything, it's a reverse engineering of the Windows API, and is perfectly legal. WINE went out of its way to avoid any copyright issues.

 

WINE is the perfect example for how one can replicate functionality without copying any code, without even copying the structure, sequence and organization of the Windows API.

 

What WINE did to Windows APIs isn't even remotely like what Google did to Java APIs.

If the Windows API declares a function like

 

bool showWindow (string x, int y);

 

doesn't Wine also need to implement a function called showWindow with a string as its first argument and an int as its second argument?  In other words, doesn't Wine take the functions exactly as declared in the Windows API headers and substitute its own function bodies? If it doesn't do that, how do Windows programs run under Wine without modification or recompilation? How does Wine together with MinGW (also a 15 year old project) let one build Windows projects (see for example https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Mingw-w64_cross_compiler) if it doesn't replicate the structure and names of the functions and constants in the Windows API? If I want to compile the following program:

 

(http://osix.net/modules/article/?id=670),

 

my system had better contain a header file called "windows.h" and it had better declare the MessageBox function as specified by the Win32 API.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 2/18/14 at 1:24pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents