Oracle and Google Spar Over Whether Programming Languages Can Be Copyrighted

pcritter writes "With the Oracle v. Google trial date set for next Monday, the Judge has asked Google and Oracle to take a position on whether a programming language is copyrightable. This presumably relates to whether Google violated copyright by using a variant of the Java language and its APIs in the Android framework. Oracle, who thinks it can be, has used J.R.R. Tolkein's Elvish language as an examples (PDF) of a language that can be copyrighted. Google disagrees (PDF)."

Comments

What is Java?

[swm]

The technical definition of the Java language is "the set of all Java programs".
This is an infinite set.
Therefore, it cannot be fixed in a tangible medium.
Therefore, it it is ineligible for copyright protection.

Any lawyers here?

[nine-times]

I'm totally baffled by this and would like an explanation of how a language could possibly be copyrighted. Is Tolkein's Elvish language copyrighted, and if so, what does that mean? I can understand specific phrases from his books being copyrighted, but if I translated this post into Elvish, does Tolkein's estate suddenly own the copyright to this post? Or what?

Sorry, but the idea of owning the copyright to a language seems silly. I might understand patenting a use of a language or patenting a method of translation, but the language itself? Doesn't copyright need to apply to a specific expression? Like... I can copyright the image of a painting, but I can't copyright paint.

Re:This case suddenly became a lot more important

[JamesP]

Yes

I sincerely think Google should quietly buy the copyright to C/C++ before this

Then let Oracle go ahead with this.

As soon as Oracle gets copyright protection on languages google does 2 things:

1 - (motion to) Block the sale/usage of anything Java since Java comes from C/C++
2 - (motion to) Block the use of anything written in C/C++: Oracle products, JVM, etc, etc

Losing Android at this point is merely an annoyance.

Congratulation Oracle, if that's what you want, that's what you get.

Re:What About Machine Language and Assembly?

[Anne Thwacks]

In the 1960's there were a bunch of law suits over this, which is why many modern assemblers have Really Stupid (TM) mnemonics. I remember TI as deliberately using stupid mnemonics so they could copyright them. This strategy was assisted by very poorly designed documentation:

A - this instruction affects some registers

B - This instruction does not affect some registers

etc

Hint A = Add, B = Branch (which means jump) but only real gurus knew this, because the documentation did not bother to tell you.

Oracle's Elvish example undermines their own point

[JDG1980]

Oracle's reference to the Tolkien Elvish language is exceptionally weak. They note that Tolkien's estate claims that Elvish is copyrighted, but they provide no case law to substantiate that claim. Instead, they cite a link to the personal Web site of a lawyer who is also a Tolkien fan. And the page includes the following:

I'm not the first to look at this issue. Back in 1999, some Tolkien scholars wanted to publish a journal entitled Tyalià Tyelelliéva, which was to include original poetry written using Tolkien's languages, but they didn't want to run afoul of copyright law. So they solicited a legal opinion from Robert P. Wade, former General Counsel, National Endowment for the Arts. This opinion is available online. He researched the law and concluded that this use would not violate any Tolkien copyrights, for a few different reasons. I won't have time to go into all of them, but here's one: The copyright law specifically says it does not protect any procedure, process, or system.12 A language is a system.13 In fact, there have been cases saying that computer languages are not copyrightable.14 Computer programs are copyrightable, but not the languages used to write them. Would a court find that a language intended for use by humans -- or elves -- falls into the same category? I can't say for sure, but I think there's a good chance of it.

So not only does their own citation say that it is likely Elvish is not copyrightable, it also says that computer languages are not copyrightable – directly undermining Oracle's own specific case! Did the attorney who included this citation assume no one would check it? I expect this kind of practice from desperate college students, not high-priced corporate lawyers.

Re:Sure.

[gtall]

A programming language has a syntax and a semantics. The semantics is generally considered mathematics. The language itself is not math. There are no reduction rules telling you how to compute in the language as opposed to, say, the lambda calculus (note the name calculus).

Consider the type system for a compute language. Where do the types exists? In the language? Nope, they are in a mathematical system into which the language must be interpreted.

That said, Oracle can suck eggs, Java isn't copyrightable because languages shouldn't be copyrightable. Their implementation may be, but language is an abstract thing. Being an abstraction does not make something mathematics, i.e., love.