Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, BSA and Others Push For Appeal On Oracle v. Google Ruling
sl4shd0rk writes "In 2012, Oracle took Google to court over the use of Java in Android. Judge William Alsup brought the ruling that the structure of APIs could not be copyrighted at all. Emerging from the proceedings, it was learned that Alsup himself had some programming background and wasn't bedazzled by Oracle's thin arguments on the range-checking function. The ruling came, programmers rejoiced and Oracle vowed Appeal. It seems that time is coming now, nearly a year later, as Microsoft, BSA, EMC, Netapp, et al. get behind Oracle to overturn Alsup's ruling citing 'destabilization' of the 'entire software industry.'"
Means "we've built an industry by holding our boot to your necks. Now how will we accumulate billions?"
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You mean just the BSA?
I mean maybe it's just me, but why is it ok for one entity to object multiple times to the same case and have it count as a a widespread rejection just because they've created several shell companies to espouse their ideas? i mean how many times have we seen "numerous" organizations write into a court case only to later find out they're all being paid by a single entity with a vested interest?
Legal Reform Idea: Any objection to a case must be done by individual companies, not group membership, and must declare conflict of interest
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
Like the hell POSIX brought down upon the industry.
Have gnu, will travel.
Everyone's been telling me (not here, just everyone else on the web) that Microsoft is better now - that they aren't quite the assholes they were in the 90's/early 2000's. There we were thinking the worst was behind them with their support for open standards on the web and not trying to kill kittens in their sleep. That if anyone still hated them in 2013 that they were being difficult, stubborn, misguided and childish.
Think I'll stay away from Neowin for a while.
Raenex is a dickhead
I'm filled with an all consuming hate for some reason. Oh yes. I know why. It's like trying to copyright the idea of a recipe for chocolate cake instead of the particular recipe you devised. These companies deserve to be dissolved. Not even kidding.
Isn't there pretty strong case law against copyrighting APIs? It strikes me that there's not a whole lot to appeal here.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The Software Mafia's argument is the exact opposite of the truth. Up until now, everyone has generally assumed that APIs could not be copyrighted, and overturning that finding would be incredibly destabilizing and harmful to the industry, as it would redefine as "infringement" practices that have been considered perfectly acceptable for over 30 years.
ok wait a minuet.... if thats the case then all of the Linux users are in trouble oh wait no they arent that's because java has been a part of linux for years now and the last time i checked the Android OS comes from linux and even uses the linux kernel so whats the issue???
With all those players on one side of the issue, it's pretty easy choose sides... even if you don't know what the issue at hand is.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Too bad there's no giant meteor to wipe out this batch of dinosaurs.
Any vendor of a Unix based operating system (including Apple, HP and IBM) should in fairness oppose this motion because they've all been very successful selling systems based on an open API. And that's just one example. I'm sure there are examples from the Graphics/GPU world.
Remember, most businesses ethics are only governed by what their government has legislated. There are always execptions but this is the general rule. This is why the USA is having so many structural problems. By making being elected such an expensive exercise, a politician who's most important priority is re-election, needs funding from corporate sponsors. This creates an obigation to support those sponsors, which creates legislation to support corporates over the public interest which courts must enforce.
The best thing to happen for American Politics is to break the obligation cycle. I'll leave that to others on how you would achieve that.
46137
> Judge William Alsup himself had some programming background and wasn't bedazzled by Oracle's thin arguments on the range-checking function.
At long last, an awesome judge. Many other decisions from the courts about IP reflect minds still set in the stone age. Check into him. We may have a hero.
> Microsoft, BSA, EMC, Netapp, et al. get behind Oracle to overturn Alsup's ruling citing 'destabilization' of the 'entire software industry.'
Well that is funny. Microsoft, a company becoming irrelevant, could end up locking itself out of future markets.
> The ruling came, programmers rejoiced and Oracle vowed Appeal.
On careful reflection I think it is better if Oracle goes and fucks itself.
Did Oracle also have a copyright on the ConvertToPercent function?
The only way to bring stability to the software industry is to make sure that compatible APIs are outlawed. You know, like what we had during the UNIX Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars
It seems to be worded a little differently, but this sounds an awful lot like that "look & feel" thing Apple beat Microsoft on some years back.
Software is an abstraction of routing control of electrons.
Routing electrons is not subject to copyright. No matter how pretty the illusion of information looks.
oh everyone's having fun with that word today. My take: "'destabilization' of the outdated, abusive-to-the-public, outdated business model still being relied on by a large portion of the software industry, including us.'"
But how they said it is so much shorter.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Obligatory
It reminds me of when FOX News tried to sue Al Franken, the judge "said that the case was 'wholly without merit, both factually and legally'. He went on to suggest that Fox News' trademark on the phrase 'fair and balanced' could be invalid. Three days later, Fox News Channel filed to drop the lawsuit."
Provoke the legal system at your own risk, Oracle.
With that argument, you could say photocopying a book is an abstraction of routing control of atoms, simply controlling where the various atoms that ink is composed of are placed on the paper. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I don't think that argument would hold up in court.
Microsoft, BSA, EMC, and other mentioned parties have no legal standing to voice their opinion in this case since they weren't a party in this court case.
The opinion that something may or may not destabilize some industry should have no legal baring, since it isn't made within the framework of any particular court case.
Well, pedantically (but not legally), they are correct. There is creativity involved in designing an API. The problem is that an API is also a functional element. According to case law precedents, functional elements (e.g. chip masks) are protected only if there is more than one way to do something. By definition, it is not possible to create something that is functionally compatible with an API without copying everything that makes that API a creative work (everything but the parameter names, essentially), and therefore it cannot be protected under copyright law under any circumstances. There simply are no situations in which allowing copyright to protect API would not result in a substantial judicial overreach that dramatically expands the scope of copyright.
Put another way, an API is the software equivalent to the shape of a connector. Just as a connector is the physical interface for electrically connecting one thing to another, an API is the software interface for programmatically connecting one piece of software to another. There is no less creativity involved in the design of a connector than in the design of an API. Therefore, given that you can patent connectors, but you cannot copyright them, this lawsuit has exactly zero chance of success.
I am of the opinion that the BSA's appeal should be declared frivolous, and that they should be spanked with a hefty fine for bringing this lawsuit in the first place. That would set a strong precedent that such absurd abuse of copyright in an attempt to protect obviously non-copyrightable things will not be tolerated.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The big issue is that you don't obviously know shit about the reason behind this case. I suggest you promptly read up before pulling more words out of your arse.
...all distributions of linux have used java...
They have? Where? So I can take the damn thing out. There should be no Java on a Linux machine outside the browser extensions... or some Hello Kitty application
Define "hello kitty" application.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
East European nations, when under the rules of the Soviets, all recognised the principle "scum rises to the top". The filth that own, control and manage the big computer companies make previous industrial barons seen like saints by comparison.
Everyone of them would happily ruin the general IT business that arose with the microprocessor, and make it impossible for any software engineer to work for anyone outside the big corporations. The major investors and stock-holders of these companies loathe the "dysfunctional smelly" engineers that created the industry. The sociopaths that head these companies are talentless vicious conmen, whose only ability is in acting as effective ring-master for said engineers.
What makes this all the more interesting is that the 'foot soldiers' are intelligent, highly motivated, and well capable of coming together and exterminating any common enemy. Team Microsoft is NOT waging war on Google, it is waging war on all of us. Did you really think this BSA alliance was about asking people not to pirate software? Computer science is one discipline and industry where we need anarchy (look up the meaning of the word if you are moronic enough to think it implies something 'bad'). Computer companies, and their bosses, need to be slapped down, and slapped down HARD when they dare to over-step the mark. Their success comes from our freedoms and efforts.
These Amicus briefs are disgusting, and show that Microsoft and Oracle need to fall, and the BSA needs to be disbanded and replaced with an organization that stays true to its purpose. MS, Oracle and the BSA are like the family dog that has just gone mad and savaged several children to death. Take note of Oracle's companions, and swear to hurt all on this list whenever possible in one's professional life. These named companies should get nothing but ill-will from anyone who cares about the future of our industry.
A useless, possibly infected, animated 'gadget', or whatever to distract your two year old long enough for a chance to run downstairs to make a quick sandwich because you're fucking starving.
There are many applications and utilities written in Java that are quite far from useless, and which are not web-based applications. The website Java.net alone has an enormous number of open source ones. I've personally played around with Klooge Werks, a virtual gaming table for RPG's, which is written entirely in Java. Minecraft was originally developed in Java. A large percentage of IBM's Watson is written in Java.. And of course, Eclipse is mostly written in Java, which is the most widely used development environment for Android
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
...Klooge Werks, a virtual gaming table... Minecraft ...
Exactly... games... Learn assembly if you want good games in a reasonably small package. With Java in there, they should be called Kludge Werks...
Android? Spyware! Nobody should be on that crap.
I can only imagine how much farther along Watson would be if it was written in a low level language without all the kludgy abstraction layers piled on top.
Java is crap, and its licensing alone is a good reason to stay away.
Ah... my bad. I didn't spot the troll ears the first time. Carry on, good sir.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you were going to leave any form of Java on a Linux machine, surely the browser extension - the only part that can actively harm you simply by being there - would be the first to go, not what you'd leave.
It doesn't hurt you having a JDK or JRE around on the system, other than using disk space, so you mostly come across as an irrational anti-fanboi
I and every programmer I know is literally a hair's way from giving continuing in the field of software engineering.
WTF is the point? I'd be at complete whimsy of Microsoft for LITERALLY anything I wrote (copyright on functions, loops, Boolean type). Why not just allow them to copyright parts of the English Language already, so they can copyright "fuck" and have anyone arrested who tells them "fuck you", even "implicitly", then they could sue into poverty anybody who decides NOT to use / write software too. At least society would collapse and we could move onto the next phase of history.
What Oracle showed was a piece of software that could have been written by any kid taking an introduction to keyboarding class... or any group of 1000 monkeys on any given day. The code snippet was short, unimpressive, and ludicrously trivial. That Oracle is being backstopped by mickeysoft and others means that their business model has failed. They are suing to preserve their failed business model. In truth, these businesses not only deserve to die, but need to die because they are a burden on the rest of the industry. They stifle competition, innovation and growth. The judge needs to rule in favor of Google again, but this time with prejudice. No more appeals. Mickeysoft and their brownshirt goons the BSA need to be run out of business, for the good of all of us.
So how does Copyright protect the imaginary world of Harry Potter.
Can someone else write a book with a new story set in the same world.
The programming environment might be a similar situation.
Except that the cost to society for not having a clone Potter is small, and for some widely used environments high.
Since Copyright is a bargain between the writer and society, seems like this last part should be considered as well.
(As usual, wouldn't have this problem if Copyrights had reasonable term limits.)
I wonder if anyone has considered the position of a professor (full, associate, or assistant) who teaches a course.
Students who follow that course learn (among other things) intellectual concepts, structure, sequence, and organisation of algorithms to solve certain problems. Much of that can be found in the literature, but not everything. Some of that is what the professor thought of and added. And that literature is usually copyrighted too
Now the student graduates, goes away, and applies those concepts, structure, sequence, and organisation to solving problems in the real world, possibly even writing software that incorporates knowledge learned in university.
Can I (plus anyone who has contributed to the literature) now ask that student (read: the company employing him/her) to buy a license for the copyrights on the non-literal copying of what I taught that student?
One might argue that the tuition fee covers this, and that hence the student indemnifies his/her employer against me in regard of using what he learned. Fair enough. But now his employer asks my ex-student to pour his knowledge into software. Software that will continue to work (and may even be sold) long after my ex-student has moved on in his/her career, or even left the company. Why should that be covered? One could very well argue that the tuition fee only covers my student's personal use of that specific part in his knowledge that I and others contributed, no? I foresee interesting legal discussions on the topic, and my guess is that many a college president and many a commercial publisher would like to have this possibility scrutinised very closely.
I think that if the court decides to recognise non-literal copying precisely this idea *will* be scrutinised by the parties I mentioned. And it's no good threatening no to hire US graduates anymore because we're talking about tons of stuff that has already made its way into commercial software over decades.
It's only fair that universities (producers of knowledge) and publishers (purveyors of knowledge) should protect their valuable intellectual property, right?
Pound the table and shriek about the end of civilization as we know it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
With that argument, you could say photocopying a book is an abstraction of routing control of atoms, simply controlling where the various atoms that ink is composed of are placed on the paper. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I don't think that argument would hold up in court.
Actually, it's not incorrect to say that reading a book is an abstraction of routing control of electrons. Also associated protons and neutrons as comprising the atoms of the book, which move as you flip a page.
And I'm patenting that!
You can usually tell what people are guilty of by what they accuse others of doing.