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.'"

32 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. "Destablization" by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:"Destablization" by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Being off your meds is the first stop towards Score:5 on Slashdot.

    2. Re:"Destablization" by buybuydandavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "citing 'destabilization' of the 'entire software industry."

      They say that like it's a bad thing.

    3. Re:"Destablization" by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They say that like it's a bad thing."

      Yeah. Even if it might not be desirable, "destabilization of the industry" is NOT a legal argument.

      Our legal system was not designed as a support for any particular kind of business model. Especially one that is inherently predatory and against the public interest. One might even say that, since it would be another restriction on software, allowing an API itself to be copyrighted is contrary to the interest of the industry as a whole.

    4. Re:"Destablization" by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're serious? We have a ruling that almost begins to makes some limited sense of patent and copyright law, and you hope it's overturned because you dislike Java?

      There is no thing, no process, no work that is so valuable that I wouldn't sacrifice it in favor of making patent and copyright law sane.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:"Destablization" by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." -- Mark Twain

      --
      Not a sentence!
  2. Microsoft, BSA, EMC, Netapp et al... by Umuri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...
    1. Re:Microsoft, BSA, EMC, Netapp et al... by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean just the BSA?

      Why are the Boy Scouts interested in this anyway?

    2. Re:Microsoft, BSA, EMC, Netapp et al... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      BSA is a front for Microsoft, with its other members being enlisted purely to disguise Microsoft's dominant role

      - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance#Criticism

    3. Re:Microsoft, BSA, EMC, Netapp et al... by anagama · · Score: 4, Funny

      This has nothing to do with some lame ass Boy Scouts. It's about cool old motorcycles.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BSA_motorcycles

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  3. Destabilization by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like the hell POSIX brought down upon the industry.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Destabilization by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's what I was thinking. They claim that a Google win would devastate the industry, I claim an Oracle win would do the same. Do they have any idea how much of the world's technology is built on common API's? Their own included?

    2. Re:Destabilization by jkroll · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's what I was thinking. They claim that a Google win would devastate the industry, I claim an Oracle win would do the same. Do they have any idea how much of the world's technology is built on common API's? Their own included?

      Couldn't agree more. Wouldn't be ironic if MS' support for Oracle helps them win the appeal. Then Oracle turns around and sues MS by claiming the original .NET implementation violated the Java API copyright.

      The only way Oracle should deserve to win this copyright case is if they had shown Google copied large parts of the actual Java implementation into their software. The API claim they are making is almost as bad as a musician claiming copyright over all songs written in the key of C.

    3. Re:Destabilization by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meanwhile, Microsoft would claim all the songs written in C#.

      A major victory, or a minor inconvenience?

    4. Re:Destabilization by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      I sense treble brewing.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Destabilization by Xest · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is Ballmer logic at work, he can't see the road ahead. All he knows is that Google out-innovated them on search and mobile and he wants that destroyed, whatever the cost.

      He's a bit like Steve Jobs in that respect, only without the ability to grow profits at all.

  4. Well there you go by razorshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Well there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. Their faces must surely be red now.

      Never. EVER. Trust Microsoft. Ever.

      They have done this crap before, and they will do it again.

      Hell, the do it every other damn OS release and trick millions of idiots in to getting it because "they fixed everything".
      Did they hell, you think they fixed everything, they just made the last OS not hell. Doesn't stop the new one from being anything less than still hellish.
      Just watch as so many idiots eat up Windows 9 when it comes out to "fix" everything wrong with Windows 8 when all it would have likely done was replace Metro with a start menu an few other fixes that would have been in any general service pack.
      Hell, Windows 7 was literally a service pack that got renamed and they forgot to remove it from the registry in an RC.

    2. Re:Well there you go by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd (humbly) argue that they're just as evil as before, they're just not as good at is as they used to be. Everyone's on to them, so many people have been burned by their antics, and people see other routes to A) avoid falling into MS's trap again B) enjoy a bit of revenge. It's not just Bill leaving, the company as a whole, just doesn't do evil as well.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    3. Re:Well there you go by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't even think that Microsoft cares about the ruling. They just want to screw over Google in any way that they possibly can. If the sides were flipped, Microsoft would change their argument. It's all about making Android as expensive as possible so that the third party handset manufacturers dump it in favor of Windows Phone.

    4. Re:Well there you go by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually I think they do it better.

      Previously they were naive and did it openly, honestly, seeing Bill's face I think he just thought he was engaging in good old capitalism at the time and his opponents were just bitter he'd won.

      Nowadays however they play it like the bad boys, they lobby like crazy, and they fund massive shill campaigns. They pay millions to defame competitors like Google and so forth.

      I actually think the old Microsoft was less harmful - everything they did wrong they at least wore on their sleeve. Now they're fighting a kind of subversive shadow war, making politicians puppets, engaging in political corruption, subverting standards processes and so forth.

      I don't like this new Microsoft, as they're behind a lot of the bad stuff that goes on in the technology world such as patent trolling, bad laws getting lobbied for/passed, but at first look, it's not so obvious that it's them behind it until the evidence creeps out which sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

      Given Bill's modern philanthropic streak I can't help but wonder if the irony of it all is that he may actually have been a positive influence on Microsoft, and it was Ballmer pushing the evil side all along, because since Bill left it's gone from playing rough to outright corruption of national institutions - governments and so forth.

  5. HAAAAATE by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:HAAAAATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Recipes don't qualify for copyright protection in the US. The prose you write down at the bottom, in some cases, may, but in general they don't. They're a list of instructions and therefor not considered creative in nature.

      WAIT...you mean a list of human-readable instructions cannot be copyrighted, but machine-readable ones can?

      Huh.

      CAPTCHA: incense

    2. Re:HAAAAATE by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Functions are for the most part not copyrightable, but the creative expression of the overall program may be.

      The powers of evil are trying to make APIs copyrightable. APIs consist of function declarations.

      Their evil plan is to destabilize the entire software industry by making it illegal for people who are not working for large corporations to program. The Armageddon they're striving for with their stupid patent wars against Google will look like small potatoes once they're allowed to copyright APIs. Patents only last 20 years. In the USA copyright is forever. While allowing APIs to be patented may be evil, it is far less evil than letting them be copyrighted.

      Of course, in order to destabilization the entire software industry they are trying to trick some stupid judges into believing that Judge Alsup's well reasoned ruling which maintains the status quo would destabilization the entire software industry. Alsup is far from stupid. Let's hope some of his wisdom rubs off on the judges in the higher courts who read his ruling.

      Shame on all of the people who are trying to hoodwink the nation with this nonsense. Especially shame on Eugene Spafford who really should know better. I had no idea he turned to the dark side.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
  6. Not only wrong, but 100% wrong by JDG1980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not only wrong, but 100% wrong by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It would put an end to WINE and ReactOs (although react never got off the ground).

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    2. Re:Not only wrong, but 100% wrong by dissy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wine? It would put an end to Windows, Office, Exchange, Active Directory (all things created by other people/companies) and Microsoft is handing them a the copyright over.

      Oracle DB would be done for as well, as SQL will now be copyrighted by the people that created it and not Oracle. Not to mention all the other software Oracle claims is theirs.

      The only possibly good thing is that pretty much not a single company in the US will own their own technology, since there has never in the past been a need to transfer copyright ownership for these APIs from the person that invented it to a company.
      Since no transfers have ever happened, no companies at all would control the things they sell.

      Destroying every aspect of capitalism with one moronic legal claim.

    3. Re:Not only wrong, but 100% wrong by rb12345 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Finding APIs copyrightable could get extremely interesting if parts of HTML5 or new network protocols count and were implemented in GPL-licenced code first... Would that essentially prevent Microsoft and Apple from legally implementing those standards?

  7. Counterexample: UNIX/POSIX/Linux by david.emery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Ethics by labnet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  9. Judge Awesome by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > 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.

  10. Creativity... in an API? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.