Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Companies Set To Appeal 2012 Oracle Vs. Google Ruling

Posted by samzenpus on from the what-do-you-think-now? dept.

sl4shd0rk writes "In 2012, Oracle took Google to court over Java. In the balance hung the legalities of writing code to mimic the functionality of copyrighted software. The trial was set to determine how all future software would be written (and by whom). Oracle's entire case boiled down to an inadvertent 9 lines of code; an argument over a simple and basic comparison of a range of numbers. The presiding judge (who had some background in writing software) didn't buy it stating he had 'written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before.' A victory for more than just Google. This week, however, Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Netapp have filed for appeal and seek to reverse the ruling. It's not looking good as the new bevy of judges Indicating they may side with Oracle on the issue."

153 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Death of the small guy by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Soon no one will be able to do stuff on their own, as they will be sued into oblivion just for thinking about something.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re: Death of the small guy by fizzer06 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've had women slap me just for thinking about something.

    2. Re: Death of the small guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've had women slap me just for thinking about something.

      So appeal it before a eunuch judge and have her ordered to comply.

    3. Re: Death of the small guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you didn't say it out loud?

    4. Re:Death of the small guy by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Soon no one will be able to do stuff on their own, as they will be sued into oblivion just for thinking about something.

      I believe that's the point.

      By the time these large companies patent everything and claim ownership of 'innovations' which had been around for years or were widespread knowledge already, the goal is to more or less ensure there's not a damned thing you can do with technology for which you won't be beholden to them.

      It's rent-seeking on a large scale, and the governments are just handing it over to them.

      At a certain point, it will be impossible for new companies to create anything at all, because the web of patents and the like will be so extensive we'll have only a few large players.

      Welcome to the oligarchy of the future. It will only keep getting worse.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Death of the small guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      int i;
      * door explodes *
      "oracle police! hands off the keyboard and lie down on the floor!"

    6. Re:Death of the small guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh no, don't worry. Your economy will be in the toilet long before we arrive in "the future".

    7. Re:Death of the small guy by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Juries keep handing it to them. They are the ones who keep finding for the prosecution so often in infringement cases.

    8. Re:Death of the small guy by QilessQi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Soon no one will be able to do stuff on their own, as they will be sued into oblivion just for thinking about something.

      I thought of posting that comment first. Expect to hear from my lawyer.

      --
      Koans and fables for the software engineer
    9. Re: Death of the small guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've had women slap me just for thinking about something.

      Running "rangeCheck" on women will often get that response.

    10. Re:Death of the small guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Now federal judges can be appointed by Obama with no Senate interference. The DNC just said it only takes 50 votes, so they don't even have to pretend to appoint fair judges to get a couple GOP votes. Literally the highest bidder can get any judge appointed by paying the DNC, yes the SAME DNC that sold missile secrets to China for campaign donations in the 90s.

    11. Re:Death of the small guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      'Twas ever thus. Monarchy,,oligarchy, and fascism masquerading as democracy or technocracy and socialism have ruled for over 100 years now, in their present forms, and before the Enlightenment, there was, of course, much less need for pretense and bamboozle. With the technological advances in mass state surveillance that would make an ancient Borgia green with envy, there may be much less need, again. Thus we now have bloggers pandering to tech nabobs like Ellison or Schmidt.

      Me, I'm hanging on to my flag, my guns and my copies of Knuth. And I still think that removing copyright and patents from Constitiutions would take the wind out of the real pirates' sails and would be worth the risks of Conventions.

    12. Re:Death of the small guy by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I will need to remap all my commands. So things like + - * / will need to be A S M D but that might be used already perhaps I need to get more creative and use the last letter in the word, it is already used go back one letter until it fits... so it would be D T Y E

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re:Death of the small guy by mlts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is only going to hurt in the long run.

      Code is going to be written. It will just be written in countries that don't have the non-functional [1] IP laws, and the products sold from there.

      This reminds me of the 1990s and how cryptography development was stifled in the US by ITAR laws. It didn't stop crypto development. What happened was that Russia, Germany, and even China started on the process.

      The same thing would happen again. It just means that innovation in coding moves to other countries, perhaps China, Russia, the Ukraine, Brazil, or elsewhere.

      Of course, the genie can be put back in the bottle -- locked down devices can prevent code that hasn't been vetted to run, and on desktops, mandatory DRM stacks would ensure the laws are enforced regardless of borders.

      [1]: Well, functional for a few, but not as a gestalt.

    14. Re:Death of the small guy by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      If nine lines of code replicated in some fashion (out of presumably millions) is a copyright violation, the other companies with enough capital should launch discovery suits demanding to search every project Oracle has ever performed for any duplicate code from others' copyrights. Software copyrights should be abolished anyway.

    15. Re:Death of the small guy by ak3ldama · · Score: 2

      so they don't even have to pretend to appoint fair judges

      Fair Judges? Those same fair judges that the Chamber of Commerce chooses for us? Or those fair judges that get kicked out once called "activist judges" for making otherwise perfectly normal decisions that some member of the "business" community hates? Tell me again who the highest bidder is? This stuff isn't trying to read tea leaves...

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    16. Re:Death of the small guy by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      And who picks the juries...?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    17. Re:Death of the small guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This has nothng to do with the nine lines of code. Oracle tried to claim copyright on the purely functional part of the Java API definition which the judge shot down. Microsoft and Oracle want to be able to get licensing fees for writing software for their platform as well as shutting down things like Wine.

    18. Re: Death of the small guy by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Such behaviour is often regarded out-of-bounds.

    19. Re: Death of the small guy by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Then have her arrested for assault.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    20. Re:Death of the small guy by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Both sides from a pool of the population.

    21. Re:Death of the small guy by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Lawyers. And usually the dumbest people they can find, who don't know about either programming or jury nullification. Because why not?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    22. Re:Death of the small guy by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Soon no one will be able to do stuff on their own, as they will be sued into oblivion just for thinking about something.

      I believe that's the point.

      By the time these large companies patent everything and claim ownership of 'innovations' which had been around for years or were widespread knowledge already, the goal is to more or less ensure there's not a damned thing you can do with technology for which you won't be beholden to them.

      It's rent-seeking on a large scale, and the governments are just handing it over to them.

      At a certain point, it will be impossible for new companies to create anything at all, because the web of patents and the like will be so extensive we'll have only a few large players.

      Welcome to the oligarchy of the future. It will only keep getting worse.

      It is FAR worse than you imagine. The current patent laws state that it is not only illegal to sell an infringing technology, but to merely use it yourself. So, even if you, as I do, create your own hardware in your own garage without caring to look at the designs of others, and design hardware and compilers without even a single formal instruction on the topic at hand -- Being that such optimal designs are self evident simply from studying the cybernetic nature of interacting information pools. Even if you've NEVER looked through the patent database -- as all companies tell employees not to do, for risk of treble damages -- your own works can be seen infringing and taken from you. Is that an unlicensed homemade computer or circuit board or OS? Well, we'll be confiscating it for patent infringements. They do not do so currently, but the patent laws say they can prevent your use of technology you've invented independently yourself.

      There is absolutely ZERO evidence that patents and copyrights are beneficial. The US plagiarized the Statute of Anne to include a provision for the development of copyright and patents. This is an ideological assumption, much like creationism: It's a good idea to think of things this way because that's the way we've always thought of things. No one has ever tested the damn hypothesis. No engineer or scientist should agree to run the world's economy based on unproven and untested hypotheses that copyright and patents are beneficial. What if they're very harmfull?! It's egregious to take that risk.

      Let's examine the Telephone, invented by Elisha Gray, and yet awarded to Alexander Bell. Regardless of who is the rightful inventor, both worked on the problem. Both invested much time and energy. Gray was prevented from benefiting from his works, while Bell was granted a monopoly over the variable resistor solution. Telephone was actually an iteration. We already knew you could transmit language via wire telegraph, we knew you could transmit tones and sounds, but we just lacked the resolution of modulation required for speech. Look at the very symbol for an ingenious good idea -- The lightbulb. Edison did not invent the incandescent bulb! There were prior patents for it. If Edison hadn't existed we would still have found a cheap gas to fill the bulbs with and extend filament life -- Many were working on the problem, but the rich arrive at the solution sooner.

      Patents have only ever benefited the big guys over the little guys. Artists, researchers, and scientists are foolishly accepting far too little up front pay for what is scarce: Their ability to do work. They bet their efforts away like gambling addicts in a copyright and patent futures market. So much talent is wasted on work that doesn't pan out, so many bright minds are lost to the economic and employment churn of betting on their future earnings. Even if you do invent something valuable, the Immortal Corporations can just wait 20 years before utilizing it. Instead of paying full price for the valuable act of research and creation o

    23. Re:Death of the small guy by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, the genie can be put back in the bottle -- locked down devices can prevent code that hasn't been vetted to run, and on desktops, mandatory DRM stacks would ensure the laws are enforced regardless of borders.

      No, sorry, it can't. There's currently enough technological excellence in other parts of the world that they can design and build unlocked general purpose computers for fairly cheap without U.S. involvement.

      The only reason why people pay attention to U.S. laws is because of the strength of U.S. consumers. The U.S. spends and spends. It's a special market unto itself because of how much spending people do, and as a consequence, how competitive the landscape is for those consumer dollars. The money doesn't come from nowhere though. The U.S. has enormous amounts of natural resources to exploit, including a very low overall population density, a habitable climate, and a stable society seen practically nowhere else.

      If it becomes more profitable to entirely ignore the U.S. market though, people will stop catering to the U.S. laws and regulations. This can be brought about in a multitude of ways, but one way that's already in progress is the loss of the middle class and thus the loss of total consumer spending power.

      That'll be the only way things can return to sanity here; after economic intimidation from other countries.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    24. Re:Death of the small guy by jbolden · · Score: 1

      If both sides are interested in dumb there is little be done. But I don't think that's always the case. This has happened in CA courts where the jury was almost entirely college educated and included several people who could code.

    25. Re:Death of the small guy by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And who picks the juries...?

      The juries themselves, every time someone finds some clever way to avoid having to serve on a jury. They often seem proud that only stupid people serve on juries.

    26. Re: Death of the small guy by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should stop thinking with your hands.

    27. Re:Death of the small guy by kermidge · · Score: 1

      So now we have TPP and later the same for Atlantic-side. (TPP just finished up another round of secret talks recently, here in the U.S.) You thought ACTA or SOPA and the like were bad? TPP is akin to SOPA on steroids, and initially involves some twelve of the big players trans-Asia.

      These days I'm left wondering how one would even go about trying to define "sane government".

      If in some parts of the world people start making unlocked computers, what do you think the chances are that you'll be able to get one in the U.S. or any of the other signatories?

      I'm no fan of plagiarism whether in code or elsewhere but when patents can be issued and asserted against the kinds of things any programmer will do naturally in the real world or the classroom it becomes just another grab for power and extortion. With no offense to those here or my friends who make a living writing code for their clients, this kind of patent crapola is but one more thing that increases my liking for open-source code.

    28. Re:Death of the small guy by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      If it becomes more profitable to entirely ignore the U.S. market though, people will stop catering to the U.S. laws and regulations. This can be brought about in a multitude of ways, but one way that's already in progress is the loss of the middle class and thus the loss of total consumer spending power.

      That'll be the only way things can return to sanity here; after economic intimidation from other countries.

      Gibbon's _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ comes to mind here. It is a Business and Financial Oligarchy that takes the place of the Roman Emperors and the Army. Government is usually in reaction to surrounding economic institution changes, and its institutions follow the economic ones.

      The trouble with economics as a driving force to history is that the effects are for the most part unintentional, that is, without foresight, or Mankind is terribly near-sighted, and so if the enterprise become lost in the process, it is usually not expected. So if Capitalism is as American as Apple Pie, no one who thinks like a Capitalist or a Financier, or a Banker will see their natural sort-sightedness as killing the Goose that laid the Golden Egg. But it can.

      The outcome you describe has a dire risk, that economic intimidation really means something like war, and that like the Roman Empire that the decay will come from within, from alien values inside our boarders, from people who never bought our myths of who we are and what we are about.

  2. Bull hockey by pegr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Copyright covers creative expressions, not functionality. If I write code identical to yours given only a description of what the code should do, the code is not creative enough for copyright.

    1. Re:Bull hockey by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 2

      One is not required to provide a complete copy of source code for programs exceeding 50 pages of code, 'creativity' is simply not a factor. If someone attempts to prove prior art that's a different factor. One does not have to prove creativity in advance, they only have to defend originality and that's only when it's called into question.

      As far as I'm concerned the discussion is irrelevant. Nine lines of code isn't sufficient to prove anything.

    2. Re:Bull hockey by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I fear once they get the courts to agree to this, copyright will be essentially extended to include functionality.

      They're acting like interfaces should be something you can copyright, despite most of them having initially stolen/borrowed the interfaces that had already been put into languages before they got there.

      These companies do not want open standards and interoperability, they want closed systems and a complete inability for people to make other products.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Bull hockey by pegr · · Score: 1

      "If someone attempts to prove prior art that's a different factor"

      Yes, and a factor that does not influence copyrightability in the slightest. Perhaps you are thinking of patents? Oracle's patent claims died in the first trial, and they are not appealing that part of the decision. All that remains is copyright. And APIs are purely functional, not creative.

    4. Re:Bull hockey by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Closed systems wouldn't be so bad. The problem is legal ambiguity about what is or is not allowed.

    5. Re:Bull hockey by sribe · · Score: 1

      ... 'creativity' is simply not a factor.

      It absolutely, positively is a core requirement for copyright. It's in the statute, and the principle has been upheld in many, many trials.

    6. Re:Bull hockey by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Slashdot in "programming is not a creative process" shock.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Bull hockey by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      Prior art was a bad choice of words though you seem to be disagreeing with me for the sake of it. Perhaps I should have said plagiarism. Regardless: Your conclusion "APIs are purely functional, not creative," and mine "'creativity' is simply not a factor'...

    8. Re:Bull hockey by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      Blanket statements with no evidence are great right? I've personally have never heard of someone being unable to obtain copyright for a large piece of software because nine lines of code weren't creative. Or are you arguing that Java as a whole wasn't creative? So, I'll bite, please enlighten me.

      What I think you'll find is that copyright law uses the term "original" not "creative" if you were to actually look. First paragraph of copyright law that I see even discussing this is as such: "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

    9. Re:Bull hockey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really like the functionality that Flash, Java applets, Active X (security obviously required)... offered. Javascript in being an open standard is taking something like 10-100x as much CPU to do the same thing.

      You're an illiterate idiot.

    10. Re:Bull hockey by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

      It depends on who wrote those nine lines of code.

    11. Re:Bull hockey by sribe · · Score: 1

      Blanket statements with no evidence are great right? I've personally have never heard of someone being unable to obtain copyright for a large piece of software because nine lines of code weren't creative. Or are you arguing that Java as a whole wasn't creative? So, I'll bite, please enlighten me.

      The question is not whether the work as a whole has copyright protection, the question is whether those 9 lines of purely functional code, have copyright protection. And no, just because a work has copyright protection does not mean that every element of it has protection.

      Why should I present evidence when the cases are so famous? As in, phone companies tried very hard to assert copyright over phone books, and failed--just for one instance of many. Also, there is of course the ruling in the case under discussion! It might or might not be overruled on the basis that the 9 lines do contain an element of creativity, but why exactly do you think the ruling in the case hinged on analyzing whether or not those 9 lines (3 really) embodied any creative expression? What is more likely, that a federal judge with long years of experience in the field pulled that requirement out of his ass, or that you are wrong?

    12. Re:Bull hockey by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      I've simply said creativity of code is not a factor in copyrighting an entire piece of software. You seem to have created a whole different argument on my behalf. I specifically stated in my first reply, "nine lines of code isn't sufficient to prove anything," yet you seem to be assuming I disagree with the original verdict. So I'll restate my question that you failed to answer, this time more specifically. Where exactly did the judge even once utter the word 'creativity' in his verdict. My bet is, NOWHERE. One doesn't have to prove 'creativity,' that's far to nebulous a concept. One does have to defend originality when it's said that the code was stolen, but the code involved was far too limited and common to win Oracle's case. That doesn't mean the code was not 'creative.'

    13. Re:Bull hockey by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      Creativity has no specific legal meaning. You can only get a copyright on an original work. There are legal concepts and you can't change them to mean what you want.

    14. Re:Bull hockey by pegr · · Score: 2

      And you missed "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

    15. Re:Bull hockey by sribe · · Score: 1

      2 seconds with google, first hit:

      Originality and Creativity in Copyright Law

      You seem to be wanting to make some huge distinction between originality and creativity. There isn't one. If it's original, it's creative, as in the word creation, meaning to create something new, as in something original.

      I don't happen to have ready access to the ruling. But I assure you, many of the filings from both Oracle and Google specifically mention "creativity" many times. Just google "oracle google creativity" and you'll get plenty of examples.

    16. Re: Bull hockey by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      I didn't miss it, I simply don't see how that applies to creativity. Once again, I don't disagree with the verdict, I simply disagree with the claim that the verdict was reached because it was not creative. That wasn't even a consideration because Google admitted to copying the code, and claimed it was an accidental, but negligible oversight committed by an employee. The judge agreed, so do I.

    17. Re:Bull hockey by jbengt · · Score: 1

      You can only get a copyright on an original work

      You can only get a copyright for original expression, it does not cover the functionality expressed.

    18. Re:Bull hockey by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Let's avoid the battle over "originality" and "creativity" and note that the issue at hand is actually whether the code in question is expressive or functional.

    19. Re: Bull hockey by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      Words can be jockeyed around to mean different things based on context. Yes, creative and create share a root, good for you. Are you actually implying that all things created are creative? Original has a specific legal context which is why, once again, that word is used to define work that can be copyrighted in the article you linked. I'm done, we're getting nowhere. In general though, lack of creativity, no matter your definition, will not get you out of trouble for copying code nor do I think most would want to set that precedent.

    20. Re: Bull hockey by sribe · · Score: 1

      Original has a specific legal context which is why, once again, that word is used to define work that can be copyrighted in the article you linked.

      AS IS CREATIVITY. SAME ARTICLE. BOTH WORDS USED. AND DISCUSSED HOW THE ORIGINALITY REQUIREMENT RELATES TO CREATIVITY.

    21. Re: Bull hockey by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean this? "Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright; accordingly, copyright protection may extend only to those components of a work that are original to the author." The article does state that the author must show a "modicum of creativity," but it never defines creativity to any extent that I saw used in this case. Besides, Java obviously fulfilled all requirements.

      Now I know your arguing specifically about the 9 lines of code, but I still see nothing that says this is the reason Google won. Google admitted to copying the code, stating it was negligible and already removed. The Jury decided Google infringed with those nine lines forcing Oracle to pretty much admit the lines had no monetary value. The judge ruled in Google's favor, his logic: "The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There’s no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You’re one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?" Originality/creativity were never really the point.

  3. As Daniel Webster once said by paiute · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, appeal before a judge who has a never used a hammer.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:As Daniel Webster once said by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      A judge who has never used a hammer? Something like this?

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    2. Re:As Daniel Webster once said by HiThere · · Score: 1

      By being wealthier, or more politically connected, than his opponent.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. [citation needed] by DrPBacon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At trial, documents came out showing that Oracle thought about making a "Java phone" but never did. Controlled chuckles echoed through the courtroom, at which time the judge ordered the last few seconds to be stricken from the record.

    --
    Spent All My Mod Points
    1. Re:[citation needed] by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Funny, since Cisco makes several Java phones, as do many other vendors. We use them at the office.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:[citation needed] by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      ... The raspberry pi can run Java on chip. MANY devices can. ARM has had the option for a few years.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  5. If they get this reversed, it will shut them down by number6x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many times have Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Netapp implemented api's from other company's copyrighted software in their own code. Reversing this ruling will make their own code illegal.

    In a perverse way, I hope they succeed in overturning the ruling and then proceed to loose all profits for the next few years. The stockholders of these companies should be swinging a very large axe in the 'C' level offices of this band of companies for even thinking of overturning this ruling. A win for Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Netapp would pretty much destroy the viability of the software industry in the USA.

  6. Knowledgable Judges by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I remember correctly, the original judge learned to code for this case and seemed to be quite knowledgable by the end of it, realizing that if APIs could be copyrighted, programming as we know it would pretty much be impossible. Now we have new judges that don't have that knowledge (presumably) and are thinking of reversing the decision. I'd like to know the grounds they'd be thinking of using for that reversal.

    Nice to see Microsoft jumping in to help out Oracle. If you're a software developer, my personal opinion is taht you should do everything you can to stop people from buying anything from either of these two companies.

    1. Re:Knowledgable Judges by rnturn · · Score: 5, Funny

      ``Now we have new judges that don't have that knowledge (presumably) and are thinking of reversing the decision. I'd like to know the grounds they'd be thinking of using for that reversal.''

      Just wait until their decision is appealed and this winds up in the Supreme Court. That's where the real technical expertise of the Judicial branch resides.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    2. Re:Knowledgable Judges by RDW · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not only did he learn Java to understand the case, but Judge Alsup was already a programmer (and mathematics graduate), putting him in an ideal position to make nuanced judgements about Oracle's arguments:

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57445082-94/judge-william-alsup-master-of-the-court-and-java/

      ' Alsup told Boies, "I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America --how could you even make that kind of argument?" '

      It seems very unlikely that the current panel will be as well-qualified (which is great for Oracle).

    3. Re:Knowledgable Judges by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The good news is that Judges hate to reverse other judges and odds are very high that Google will have IBM on there side.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Knowledgable Judges by nytes · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Alsup himself could file an amicus brief in the appeal.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  7. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by Tx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. Big companies buy up huge defensive patent portfolios, then when they end up infringing each other's IP, they just work out cross-licensing deals with each other; as long as a company has a big enough portfolio of relevant IP, they are pretty safe. It's all very cosy.

    Who isn't safe is any new player trying to enter the market, who might as well give up, or at best hope to be bought by one of the established players rather than sued into oblivion.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  8. Only Oracle Filed by bedroll · · Score: 4, Informative

    "This week, however, Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Netapp have filed for appeal and seek to reverse the ruling."

    This isn't quite right. The case is between Oracle and Google, the other companies have no standing. Instead, Microsoft, EMC, and Netapp have filed an amicus brief in support of Oracle. They're all companies who stand to benefit from Copyright protection on their APIs.

    1. Re:Only Oracle Filed by swilver · · Score: 1

      As well-established companies, who are actually making money out of selling software, I'd say they stand to lose much more when API's become copyrighted.

    2. Re:Only Oracle Filed by Peter+Harris · · Score: 1

      [sigh]

      Yes.

      And that's an example of why I wish I could be reading about this on Groklaw instead of Slashdot.

      --

      -- What do you need?
      -- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
  9. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by game+kid · · Score: 1

    Pretty much, plus those guys (or at least MS and Oracle) have the money and lobbyists to be the law. "Why are you violating this poor company's copyr--oh hi, Microsoft, didn't expect the Christmas suitcase so soon! CASE DISMISSED. /gavel"

    The overturn would be a massive win for (at least two of) those four and a(nother) loss for sensible copyright.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  10. Black letter law by jbolden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's really lacking here is good quality black letter law about what copyright is supposed to do with respect to software. The courts are trying to fill a void left by our non-functional congress. The right way to be handling Microsoft's concerns is before a congressional subcommittee which can have a detailed hearings draws up legislation that goes to a committee....

    1. Re:Black letter law by chihowa · · Score: 2

      That's how it should technically be handled, but practically the outcome would be worse. Congress is entirely run by lobbyists, with laws drafted entirely by the lobbying parties and consensus decided entirely by "campaign donations".

      At least in an open court there is a token effort to decide which argument is the most sound. The courts allow for appeals, too, which is notably lacking in the practical outcomes of the decisions of legislators.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    2. Re:Black letter law by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There are lots of rich people on all sides of the copyright debate. I suspect that the money issues don't apply as much because they cancel each other out. You are right that lobbyists would draft, but that's fine. Lobbyists are just acting like unpaid staffers in this case.

        As for the appeals, the legislature can revise and amend when they discover they made a mistake.

    3. Re:Black letter law by shentino · · Score: 1

      The vagueness is intentional. They *want* the law to be full of landmines that judges can detonate at their pleasure on whoever their puppetmasters don't like.

    4. Re:Black letter law by shentino · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a mistake

    5. Re:Black letter law by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Nonfunctional? I think the better term would be dysfunctional; they function all right, just not in the interest of those they originally were supposed to represent.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re:Black letter law by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I agree it is a problem in general. I'm just saying in this particular instance it isn't a problem.

    7. Re:Black letter law by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      That's presuming there are principled men in Congress, like thinking judges will uphold and enforce the law and limitations--including on themselves--rather than innovate and favor pet prejudices and opinions; do you think the committee on currency did much more than snore about BTC when the BTC foundation was invited? Even cared to show-up on time so the committee had enough attendees to begin? Fuck no.

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    8. Re:Black letter law by jbolden · · Score: 1

      BTC foundation? You mean bitcoin? Why would they care? Bitcoin is a few billion dollars best case and transaction volumes are in the tens of millions of day at best. The other markets they oversee are tens of trillions and often hundreds of billions a day in transactions.

      I think congress right now sucks terribly. OTOH I think it could easily be better.

    9. Re:Black letter law by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      They would care because in theory they're principled men who dutifully uphold, well...duties. xD Doing the drop-in-the-bucket comparison isn't a great argument btw. It impresses only those who don't understand that large numbers are composed of small ones. ;)

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    10. Re:Black letter law by jbolden · · Score: 1

      What duties do they have with respect to bitcoin that you don't think they fulfilled? And what does bitcoin combine with?

  11. What cause for appeal? by erroneus · · Score: 2

    I'm reading and stuff, but I'm not seeing a reason for appeal. Was there a technical error? I suppose there was that one bit about Alsup declaring APIs can't be copyrighted. I believe Alsup is right. But it doesn't advantage 'big software' in the least that people could be allowed to replace their software with something compatible... which, by the way, was something which I thought was established back when someone rewrote their own BIOS for a PC clone so long ago.

    1. Re:What cause for appeal? by jbolden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is the appeal: http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Oracle.Appeal.Brief_.pdf

      1) Oracle's theory of the technical error is that congress does not want to allow copying that technically avoids the statute so the statue needs to be read broadly it was read narrowly by the original court.

      2) Method of operation is copyrightable under a broad reading. They give examples of paraphrases of books being copyrightable. They have a good argument here.

      3) Interoperability is not a concern of copyright law and thus the court can't argue that this plays a role. This is key because Google's defense argued that Sun had waived some of their protections.

      I just think copyright law is too ambiguous and this needs to be kicked to congress.

    2. Re:What cause for appeal? by devent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An API is a collection of facts, those can't be changed, they are like axioms in mathematics or words in a language. In math it's 1+1=2 and in API it would read result = new One().add(new One()) // result is Two. Like you can't change the meaning of "+" you can't change the meaning of "add". The copyright should not hold to the axioms but to the implementation, like copyright does not cover words but sentences.

      So if you want to compare an API to a book, then the API are the words of the language the book uses. API is then the words the application is using. You can't copyright words.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    3. Re:What cause for appeal? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's one interpretation of an API. Another is that it is a creative work in itself in which case everything is protected except in the way it is licensed. You are just assuming API's aren't copyrightable to argue APIs aren't copyrightable effectively.

    4. Re:What cause for appeal? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You have done nothing to argue against the OPs primary thesis. Namely that:

                "An API is a collection of facts"

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:What cause for appeal? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Interoperability is not a concern of copyright law and thus the court can't argue that this plays a role.

      Sure it is; the DMCA even has an exception for it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:What cause for appeal? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Sure I have. There is creative content. Collections of facts in a written structure can be copyrighted. A cookbook for example can have copyright. A documentary, even one that is nothing more than collection of interview can be copyrighted. Etc...

    7. Re:What cause for appeal? by ediron2 · · Score: 2

      Am sure you're aware that a cookbook can be copyrighted, but not the recipes therein.

      Analogously, the API documentation (en masse) can be copyrighted. Format of the documentation, annotations and sample code, etc. are the 'creative work' in this example, but not the recipes (the api calls) or the ingredients (the parameters of those calls). And copyrighting a functional framework itself (especially one that was pushed as a free portable run-anywhere languages so aggressively for more than a decade) is akin to trying to claw back a recipe once it has been shared. It's the epitome of why recipes aren't copyrightable.

    8. Re:What cause for appeal? by devent · · Score: 1

      The last point is a good one. Sun actively promoted Java and competing JVMs. IBM and Apache have implemented their JVMs using Sun's API. The only restriction of Sun was the testing/compatibility framework Technology Compatibility Kit for the brand "Java". As far as I recall Sun only allowed JVMs to use the name "Java" only if they pass the TCK and to use the TCK you needed a license from Sun. That is why Google's and Apache's JVMs are not called Java.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    9. Re:What cause for appeal? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      No, the structure the facts are surrounded in is copyrightable.

      Regarding what you find in cookbooks, copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression -- a description, explanation, or illustration, for example -- that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.

      Interviews are almost never just facts, interviews are expression.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    10. Re:What cause for appeal? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Not quite true Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.

      As for the fact the API copyright was clearly waived by Sun in making it so public Google raised this the judge agreed. I think Oracle has a weak case here as I mentioned in original post. We were excluding that issue and just talking about a private API.

    11. Re:What cause for appeal? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Oracle's argument is that an API is a structure of facts not a list of facts.

    12. Re:What cause for appeal? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, then simply re-indent it.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    13. Re:What cause for appeal? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      You have to make a more substantial change to the structure to avoid a copyright violation. Think if you were copying over encyclopedia articles re-indenting them wouldn't solve it.

    14. Re:What cause for appeal? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      If I was copying an encyclopoedia, then I wouldn't be copying an API. Please try to stick to one argument.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    15. Re:What cause for appeal? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Copyright law comes from books and music and for software is mostly all just a collection of analogies. The analogies are what matters. There isn't law governing an API. Which is why I had said above that what we need is black letter law.

    16. Re:What cause for appeal? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but there are some very close analogies. Recipe books are explicitly mentioned, for example, and they even mention secret ingredients, or "opaque types" as some programmers call them.

      There's even real-world precedent now, and if anything they're more in favour of the copier than the copyright owner (e.g. google's repackaging of linux kernel headers).

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  12. Re:Isn't it ironic... by jbolden · · Score: 1

    I don't know that it is entirely clear that without clean room BIOS, IBM would have dominated. IBM was certainly a major player without Compaq but without Tandy moving towards what Compaq accomplished in copying the BIOS I don't know that the platform is nearly as successful. Intel, Western Digital and Microsoft have far less interest in advancing the x86 platform is IBM is getting all the money. Moreover IBM lost tremendously as PCs replaced mainframes. I suspect that the divisions within IBM that had pushed for slowing the rise of x86 servers and were hostile to thick client applications that acted as a front end for the mainframe, might have more easily won the battle.

    In this alternative history I think Apple becomes the dominant office computer system. Because Apple doesn't allow for price drops Commodore could do better. Maybe IBM and DEC end up owning enterprise and the move of PCs into enterprise doesn't happen the platforms just evolve independently.

  13. This will go to the Supreme Court by JDG1980 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not surprising that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is looking to side with Oracle. They're notorious for favoring an absurdly over-broad interpretation of patent law, and have been described as a "rogue court". Fortunately, the Supreme Court has shown a great deal of skepticism for the Federal Circuit's decisions, and this crosses traditional party lines (many of the rulings overriding the FC were unanimous or near-unanimous).

    My prediction is that the patent shills on the Federal Circuit will side with Oracle, but that the ruling will then be appealed to the Supreme Court, where it will be overturned, setting a binding precedent that APIs cannot be copyrighted.

  14. boycott them if possible by Erleperle · · Score: 1

    Is it not possible simply to boycott these companies' products? To some extent at least

  15. Java. by Kludge · · Score: 1

    Another good reason not to use Java

    1. Re:Java. by tepples · · Score: 1

      So which mobile device doesn't A. heavily use Java or B. require the owner of a device to pay an annual fee to run his own code on the device?

  16. Groklaw by imadoofus · · Score: 2

    Ugh...I miss Groklaw...

    --
    "pr0n": An anagram of "porn," possibly indicating the use of pornography. - www.microsoft.com
    1. Re:Groklaw by ShawnX · · Score: 1

      Then we need to spread... http://grokthelaw.freeforums.net/ As this is forming the 'NEW" Groklaw

      --
      Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
    2. Re:Groklaw by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yes, a random forum with random posters is as good as a trustworthy known lawyer with years of time proving she was providing facts rather than personal bias ... yea, thats 'the new groklaw' ...

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  17. Copyright the English language by scsirob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Oracle succeeds in claiming copyright on the Java API then the next step is natural languages. Today an author can claim copyright on a story written in English. Claiming copyright on the Java API is like claiming copyright on the English language. Every Slashdot member who has ever written an article or even a comment would be liable for copyright infringement if this flies.

    I do not know how to stop this insanity but there must be a way to stop big corporations from taking and claiming ownership of everything. This has gone far enough.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  18. Time period to pay off a judge by thepittman · · Score: 1

    I guess we have discovered that it takes a year to "influence" enough judges to bring your case back to court.

  19. Java stole from C by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    Why does Java have C's syntax? Java entirely ripped off the C syntax to ride on C's fan base.

    If implementing your API based on another language API is a copyright violation, then I don't see why implementing your syntax based on another language's syntax isn't a copyright violation.

    This whole case reeks of rent-seeking. It's disgusting and frustrating. Imagine how much faster technology would evolve if people competed by making better stuff instead...

    The world of technology has always been a ruthless race, the ones that fall behind get gobbled up. But in the past decade the contenders are spending majority of their time trying to stab the other contenders instead of actually racing. Imagine in the Olympics, 100m dash, the runners are ready to run, the gun goes off.... and the runners start throwing dirt at each other's faces instead of actually racing. Sure, the runner who throws most dirt and kills the other runners will be able to get to the finish line first... but there will be no winners! EVERYONE loses!

    1. Re:Java stole from C by SQL+Error · · Score: 3, Funny

      Imagine in the Olympics, 100m dash, the runners are ready to run, the gun goes off.... and the runners start throwing dirt at each other's faces instead of actually racing. Sure, the runner who throws most dirt and kills the other runners will be able to get to the finish line first... but there will be no winners! EVERYONE loses!

      That would be awesome.

    2. Re:Java stole from C by QilessQi · · Score: 1

      That game exists already in the United States. It's called "Congress".

      --
      Koans and fables for the software engineer
    3. Re:Java stole from C by swilver · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can play fair (run the 100m), or you can play dirty (disable everyone else). Then it is just a matter of what is the easier feat to accomplish... training to become the fastest 100m sprinter or training to become the best dirt thrower.

      I have a suspicion that dirt throwing is much easier.

  20. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by Kirth · · Score: 1

    Speaking of C. This would just about make all the software Microsoft or Oracle ever wrote a copyright infringement. Because they used C or a derivative thereof.

    --
    "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
  21. Re:Clean room not clean ... no rules for Google. by thaylin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wait, what? So a contractor adds code that Google expressly told them not to, and somehow Google is now lacking in good faith... The mere fact that Google told him not to shows that they were acting is better faith then you are giving him credit for.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  22. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by ausekilis · · Score: 2

    Lets take this a step further. I don't buy that this is simply a way to get Google to bend over a bit, there has to be more to this. Given that MS has a history of cut-throat tactics to ensure market share, I'm theorizing that this is going to be the start of another round of fighting with the *NIX community, including OSX.

    Microsoft has turned it's war on Linux into a tradition, frequently claiming that assorted parts of Linux violate MS copyrights. The general response from the OSS community is "Put up for shut up." If this ruling is overturned, the battlespace changes. MS can claim rights to a lot of violations very easily. SMB, NTFS, and FAT all come to mind, I'm sure there are others. Of course, this door swings both ways, since Active Directory is basically LDAP with Kerberos and a few bells and whistles. Im sure Apple has incorporated or modified some software that belongs to MS, I know they've built on *NIX, since they are BSD based.

    None of these OS companies have ever played nice with one another, it'll be interesting to see "Monkey Shit Fight '14: The Revenge"

  23. Re: If Oracle win, Oracle lose by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    Without copyright the gpl is bsd, open source harmony.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  24. Re:And the reason for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well if you agree with $85 Billion a month being printed and given to the 1%, along with this court ruling being overturned, and the NSA spying, I could understand you not wanting the GOP to stop anything.

    If you are one of the other 99.5% of us, stopping the current DNC trampling on the middle class and rights MIGHT just be the right thing to do at the moment.

  25. Re:isn't that pretty much the definition by thaylin · · Score: 1

    Prejudice towards what? Judges can be knowledgeable on the subject matter, in fact they are expected to be in many cases. What you are think of is they cannot be biased towards one defendant or another.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  26. When you count from 1 to 10, do you stop at 9? by GiantRobotMonster · · Score: 1

    From the TFA:

    private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
            if (fromIndex > toIndex)
                        throw new IllegalArgumentException( "fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")" );
              if (fromIndex < 0)
                        throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
              if (toIndex > arrayLen)
                        throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
    }

    This is crap. Either 'toIndex' actually means 'onePastToIndex', or the final if test should be if (toIndex >= arrayLen) .
    Try calling this function with arrayLen=10, fromIndex=1, toIndex=10 -- no exception, despite the zero-based array's last element being index 9.
    If you ask somebody to count from 1 to 10, do they stop at 9?
    If you see the following prototype: int randomValue( int fromValue, int toValue), what is the highest value you would expect could be returned?

    Identifiers should be named accurately! Bad identifiers like this make code unnecessarily difficult to read, and makes it easier for bugs to go unnoticed.

    If the allegation is that Google copied this code, and they've replicated the bad names along with the trivial algorithm, it does seem likely they authored their version via cut & paste...

    1. Re:When you count from 1 to 10, do you stop at 9? by EricTheRed · · Score: 1

      This is crap. Either 'toIndex' actually means 'onePastToIndex', or the final if test should be if (toIndex >= arrayLen) .
      Try calling this function with arrayLen=10, fromIndex=1, toIndex=10 -- no exception, despite the zero-based array's last element being index 9.
      If you ask somebody to count from 1 to 10, do they stop at 9?
      If you see the following prototype: int randomValue( int fromValue, int toValue), what is the highest value you would expect could be returned?

      Identifiers should be named accurately! Bad identifiers like this make code unnecessarily difficult to read, and makes it easier for bugs to go unnoticed.

      If the allegation is that Google copied this code, and they've replicated the bad names along with the trivial algorithm, it does seem likely they authored their version via cut & paste...

      It might actually be correct, it depends on what's calling this method.

      For example take either String.substring(begin,end) or String.subSequence(begin,end)

      In either of those methods begin is the first inclusive index but end is the last exclusive one , so when you want chars 1..9 then begin is 1 but end is 10

      There's plenty of api call's in there which follow the same pattern.

      --
      Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
    2. Re:When you count from 1 to 10, do you stop at 9? by GiantRobotMonster · · Score: 1

      The code might be "correct" but the terminology used in its interface does not match what the code does.
      Abusing the English language because its too hard to come up with unambiguous accurate descriptors makes for lousy code.
      Just because there are loads of APIs that follow this pattern doesn't make them right, if they are using words that mean something else entirely.
      There's nothing wrong with the "last exclusive one" pattern, but you need to make it obvious in your choice of words that this is what is intended.
      There are a loads of APIs that have misleading interfaces.
      Take STL's std::numeric_limits<int>::min() -- returns the minimum value representable by an int, a negative value.
      What do you think std::numeric_limits<float>::min() returns? Surprisingly, it is not negative. Misleading junk!

    3. Re:When you count from 1 to 10, do you stop at 9? by swilver · · Score: 1

      This is an internal function (private) that is not part of the API, although there are many similar functions that take a from/to index.

      Programming languages only have a convenient relation to English. Programmers will write "toIndex" and actually mean "uptoButNotIncludingIndex". The name acts as a reminder of what it is, but the real details are in the specification of the function (the javadoc) that comes with every public API in Java.

      Anyway, I've found it is quite common to have the "end" index mean upto but not including the end index when dealing with 0 based lists. This is because a very common case, where you want to do something all the way to the end of the list, you can just use the "length" of such a list as the end index without having to substract one from it.

    4. Re:When you count from 1 to 10, do you stop at 9? by GiantRobotMonster · · Score: 1

      Yes, this type of inaccurate naming is a common practice -- it does not make it a good one.

      Any programmer working for me that writes "toIndex" and actually means "uptoButNotIncludingIndex" will be instructed to write what they mean, not what they can be bothered to type.

      To not do so makes the code unnecessarily cryptic, and is the cause of many bugs.

      I recently came across a flag that had been named "mustDoX", which actually meant "canDoX". If I believed the meaning of the name, the code was wrong. Turned out the name was wrong. Getting this sort of thing right is really important. If you're happy to have names that are "conveniently" related to English, rather than "accurate", the resulting source is poor, deserving the moniker "code". Good quality source does is not "code" to be decrypted!

  27. Dinosaurs against progress by elashish14 · · Score: 2

    Anyone looking at this case can see that each side can be classified into one of two groups.

    On Google's side, we have companies that are providing new products and innovating in the realm of engineering. Google alone has produced (sometimes through acquisition, but has continued to nurture and develop) Android, Docs, Search (PageRank), Hangouts, Adwords, News, and tons more. People get angry at Google for killing products that they actually use (nobody complained when the Kin or WinRT went away). Likewise, on their side they have companies like Rackspace, Red Hat, Stack Exchange, and a host of others who are still real engineering companies, who develop and promote the adoption of real engineering products which people actually use.

    On the other hand, you have dinosaurs like Oracle, Microsoft, EMC, and so on who have more interest in killing competing products via acquisition, lititgation, EEE, and so on. Oracle alone has probably killed more products than it has successfully brought to the market (think OpenOffice and OpenSolaris, there are probably many more). And when they do try to innovate (think of all of Microsoft's failures for example), they fall flat on their face because they don't understand progress or real, sound engineering. But they're the first ones to jump into patent and copyright suits. Microsoft makes more money off Android than they do off their failed mobile efforts. They're not in the business to profit off progress - they're in it to profit off killing others. Google is by no means a saint in this respect, but they're certainly not pathological killers. Companies in this group are just parasites, sucking money out of the industry through shitty developers (shitty because they build upon these companies' shitty products), or through legal or business means including litigation, extortion, bribery, and conflict of interest.

    Nothing will stop the companies on Google's side from continuing to innovate and do good in the world with the services they provide. But the courts will decide here whether they're strong enough to support them, or if they want to chum up with the dinosaurs and fight the good fight against continued progress and innovation.

    --
    I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
  28. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by Xest · · Score: 1

    It still can't end well in the long run.

    Say in this case they're succesful, say they manage to destroy Google with their patents, Google files for bankruptcy and is stripped down and sold off.

    What do you think is going to happen to Google's patents? All it will take is a patent troll that has implemented no software itself to hit companies like Microsoft with them and Microsoft defensive patents will be 100% useless because the patent troll produces nothing useful to sue over.

    Maybe Microsoft themselves will buy up the patents but that's going to get them into a massive bidding war and it's going to cost them hard and for what? Microsoft would have a choice - blow money on patents with no one to use them against meaning you're effectively spending money on patents you'll never be able to make any money back off of, or let them go to someone who can make money off of Microsoft by using them against them.

    Then when that happens you'll see a whole industry arise, an industry in creating more patents for the single purpose of selling them for a fortune to Microsoft, or selling them to patent trolls.

    It's not going to end well. Microsoft's defensive patent suits could only ever get it so far, then after that patents are going to be a massive net cost to them with nothing whatsoever to show for that cost.

  29. Re:Isn't it ironic... by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

    You could say the same about MSDOS too (a CP/M clone). Probably BASIC also.

  30. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by pegr · · Score: 1

    "... claiming that assorted parts of Linux violate MS copyrights."

    PLEASE stop confusing patents and copyrights. Microsoft has NEVER accused Linux of violating copyrights. (Perhaps you were thinking of SCO? ;)

    Side note, I miss PJ...

  31. Questions asked don't predict Judge behavior by davecb · · Score: 1

    Quaetions tell you what part of the lawyer's arguments need expansion. Sometimes that can mean "you guys need to respond to this" (decision about to go one way), and sometimes questions can mean "are you really serious about this?" (decision about to go the other way).

    They use witnesses to get facts, experts to get facts and expert opinion, and lawyers to get logic, then apply facts to the logic and expert opinion. If they were programmers, they'd be doing a transitive closure on ((facts + opinions) * logic) and pruning off all the branches that evaluate to "factually wrong" or "invalid logic". What comes out are prospective solutions, which then get pattern-matched against rules of law and legislation, looking for a fit (:-))

    When there isn't a unique answer, they probe for more facts and logical arguments. Thus the questions.

    --dave (not totally seriously, but close) c-b

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  32. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by pegr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can copyright an implementation of a language, but you cannot copyright the language itself. This view is more completely settled in EU law, but there are US cases that have reached the same conclusion.

    http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~aho/cs6998/lectures/11-10-11_Zimmeck_ProtectPL.pdf
    http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/sas-v-wpl-programming-languages-not.html
    http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/january/computer-programming-languages-should-not-be-viewed-as-copyrightable-says-high-court-judge/

  33. Re: If Oracle win, Oracle lose by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Without copyright the gpl is bsd, open source harmony.

    Without copyright there would be no need for anything different from BSD. In effect (software patents aside) everything would either be freely usable or secret!

  34. Destroy Open Source! by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 2

    This is actually targeting open source. After all, if you can't see the source code, you can hardly say it was "copied" - therefore, you have to protect your software by never letting anyone see the source. Problem solved!

  35. Microsoft likes competition - as long as it's weak by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

    Microsoft never seeks to put its competition out of business. It wants them there
    1. As monopoly insurance
    2. As a source of ideas to copy

    What they do seek to do is ensure that all their competitors operate on the same business model as Microsoft. i.e. writing and selling software with periodic incompatible upgrades that force everyone to buy their software again and again. This is the model Microsoft spent 30 years building monopolies to support, and they know they can win against anybody else operating on this model. But the internet has thrown some big wrenches into it

    Open Source bugs them, but since it generates no serious direct revenue, they have a pretty easy time fighting there. After 20 years, OpenOffice still hasn't put much of a dent in Microsoft's software revenue stream. Microsoft can keep prices just low enough to make the free stuff just incompatible enough to be not worth the bother to most users - or at least most users that are willing to pay for an office suite. And a big advertising and lobbying budget doesn't hurt when the competition has neither.

    On the other hand, Google perfected the advertising-supported software model. Their model makes tons of money, and when used to fund loss leader free software, it drives Microsoft nuts. Google Docs doesn't hold a candle to OpenOffice functionality or price-wise, but it was enough to bring Office 365 into being. And that's Google's general direction - show that it's possible to compete with even a behemoth like Microsoft when you adopt the web-based paradigm. Web-based apps are probably not as 'good' as desktop apps, but the ease of deployment makes them a win in many cases nonetheless. And then there's Android. The first application of this model to become a viable platform competitor to Windows. Google must be stopped!!!! iOS was never a threat. Apple could keep it's 15% market share, while serving as Microsoft's R&D department. That was the old model, and it seems pretty quaint today.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  36. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by shentino · · Score: 1

    Sorry, doesn't work that way. The ruling would be selectively enforced and those companies would magically not be prosecuted.

  37. Re:If Oracle win, Oracle lose by shentino · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but Microsoft is Oracle's ally in this against their common enemy.

    Oracle probably acquired Sun just so they could sue Google, also one of MIcrosoft's foes.

    There is no way in hell Microsoft would go after Oracle for this.

  38. Re:And the reason for that by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You're worried about the *Democrats* giving more money to the 1%? AHAHAHAHAHAA

    Sigh...

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  39. Re:Clean room not clean ... no rules for Google. by shentino · · Score: 1

    Does that mean that Google is off the hook for it and that Oracle needs to go after the contractor directly?

    Or does it mean that Google eats it but then turns around and sues the contractor for indemnification?

  40. Oversimplifying, as usual by daboochmeister · · Score: 1

    Nothing the judges said indicates that they may side with Oracle on the overall issue (there was back and forth, and teasers in both directions on that). The one clear indication given was that the judges lean toward saying that if they overturn Alsup on APIs being copyrightable, they agreed with Oracle that there's not a need for another jury trial.

    --
    "Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
  41. Re:And the reason for that by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    Which part of $85 billion a month is confusing you?

    Thats over $1 trillion per year.

    Werent the democrats up in arms over the entire Iraq war costing $800 billion over 10 years? Werent they up in arms over some Republican-supporting private interests such as Haliburton catching some of that $80 billion per year?

    So now we are talking about the Democrats pushing money at banks and corporations at a rate that is over 10 times what they were up in arms about when Bush was on office... and when we don't hear crickets from them, we hear excuses.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  42. Re:And the reason for that by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Yeah, vote 'em all out, Democrats and Republicans alike.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  43. I still do not understand... by bayankaran · · Score: 2

    ...why Google did not buy Sun?

    It might be the most boneheaded indecision when the whole Android platform is built on Java.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
  44. Re:Clean room not clean ... no rules for Google. by thaylin · · Score: 1

    The original statement was that it was done in bad faith by Google, your retort does not counter my statement in that regards.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  45. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by reg · · Score: 2

    This is not arguing that the language is copyright, but the standard library API. Thankfully the C standard library API is an ISO/IEEE standard, and so is C++, but many, many other libraries are not. Be prepared to have lots of old, failing tech companies come out of the woodwork looking for money... For example, XMLHttpRequest(): is it properly standardized? Not really. Could Microsoft sue? Why do you think they are supporting Oracle... Is it critical to the Web? Yes.

    Regards,
        -Jeremy

  46. Re:If Oracle win, Oracle lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is no way in hell Microsoft would go after Oracle for this.

    Until they have beat Google. Then all bets are off. There is no honour among thieves.

  47. Lawyers using wrong approach by reg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Application Programming Interfaces are like forms - you fill one out and hand it to something to get work done. Then someone hands you back a response. If the Java APIs can be copyrighted then so can the layout of forms. Except US law says forms cannot be copyright (says Wikipedia):

    37 Code of Federal Regulations  202.1(c) (2006) ("Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information [are not subject to copyright]"); see also Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880).

    This is just another example of adding "on a computer" and claiming it is something new.

    Regards,
    -Jeremy

  48. The four horsemen by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Netapp

    Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death

    Somehow seemed to fit.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  49. Re:Isn't it ironic... by jbengt · · Score: 1

    I don't know that it is entirely clear that without clean room BIOS, IBM would have dominated.

    That is not what the GP was saying. GP was making the point that in a more heterogeneous hardware environment, MS would not have been able to build a monopoly based on a single dominant operating system.

  50. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by number6x · · Score: 1

    This is a copyright issue, not a patent issue. Their defensive patents won't be of much use. Companies will have to start bulding massive copyright defense portfolios. The first sued will be the dead examples to the ones who follow.

  51. Re:If they get this reversed, it will shut them do by swilver · · Score: 1

    You are right about a whole new industry arising. It just won't be in America.

  52. Re:Isn't it ironic... by jbolden · · Score: 1

    footnote in history, IBM OS/2 would have dominated? Sounds to me like he was saying a monopoly would exist it would just have been IBM's.

    A more heterogeneous environment is an entirely different situation. Microsoft was dominant even in the age where IBM compatibles weren't fully compatible. DOS offered a common platform that applications could target. I'd suspect that if hardware unification never happens then Microsoft would have quickly had to abstract the hardware details through the OS and applications would have tied themselves even more tightly to DOS / Windows than they are today. More of less what Android is doing for various phone systems. So yes I think they would have have had potentially an even bigger monopoly since such an abstraction system would have worked well for embedded starting in the 1980s the same way Android is working so well for embedded today.

  53. A Very Old Reason to Copy APIs by middlebass · · Score: 1

    Most APIs are not unique. In most cases, the same API structure is used for many other purposes in other programs. But back in the late 1960s there was another reason to copy APIs, and that was to replace the module using it. In a simple example, assume a program called jobctla.dll that has a single API. I might have renamed jobctla.dll, with it's single API, to jobctlax.dll, and then replaced the original with my own jobctla.dll that did something new and eventually passed the same API parameters to the old jobctlax.dll. One common example of this was in early job accounting routines, where I would parse out additional account numbers, user ids and other info in a job card before it was passed on to the original job control processor.

  54. Lets initialize a UART by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    Just how many possible sequences of code are there to initialize a few registers. Actually the manufacturer of the part has sample code to initialize the chip that happens to be copyrighted itself. They probably won't sue you if you are buying their chips, but what happens when some smart guy designs a chip which is cheaper and plug in compatible. Lets take that a step further. There was a time people were building new devices and new drivers had to be written. But once Microsoft bundled drivers for all the commonly occurring hardware, clever designers learned to build cheaper hardware that was register compliant so the built in drivers would work. Anyway, just how many variations of code output bytes to a hart when the TBRE flag is set?

  55. Microsoft? by vilanye · · Score: 1

    Does Microsoft not know that if Oracle wins the appeal, MS can be sued for tens of millions of dollars for its copying the structure of many libs such as berkley sockets?

    I guess it is true that Microsoft is trying to commit suicide.

  56. Re:If Oracle win, Oracle lose by vilanye · · Score: 1

    Linux is GPLv2 which leans heavily on copyright.

    No copyright means that you can download, compile and run it. No copyright is not the same as public domain and Linux is not public domain.

  57. Re: If Oracle win, Oracle lose by vilanye · · Score: 1

    BSD != no copyright

  58. Re:If Oracle win, Oracle lose by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Linux depends on copyright for their operation.

    Of course it does. The GNU foundation acknowledges it's use/need of copyright while simultaneously working to make such copyright systems unnecessary.
    The GPL relies upon the notion that if you do not agree to the GPL, the GPLed code reverts to standard copyright, making it illegal to integrate that code into a released proprietary work.