Supreme Court May Decide the Fate of APIs (But Also Klingonese and Dothraki)

New submitter nerdpocalypse writes: In a larger battle than even Godzilla v. Mothra, Google v. Oracle threatens not only Japan but the entire nerd world. What is at stake is how a language can be [copyrighted]. This affects not just programming languages, APIs, and everything that runs ... well ... everything, but also the copyright status of new languages such as Klingon and Dothraki.

Comments

SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[ciaran2014]

Software Freedom Law Center's brief regarding whether the Supreme Court should take the case or not:

https://www.softwarefreedom.or...

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

What I gather is the linked article at Slate seems more ominous than this sounds. From the brief, I understand that Google took code and changed it (which may or may not be against the terms) and then redistributed it (via the SDK? the Android OS?) for developers to use.

Then again... isn't OO programming about allowing overridden methods? Wouldn't that fall under a derivative work?

Whatever terms were in Oracle's license is what is important here.

The article at Slate makes it sound like this case means "All technology in the known universe is under threat and 100's of millions will lose their jobs and die and suffer and burn and cry." Please, I seriusly doubt that. Technology is already in the hands of people, and, like writing a book, there's not stopping it now.

Re: SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

Mob mentality rules the world of software developers, even though it is decried.

The lawyers will sort this one out.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

That's tough reading, even by legal-writing standards.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

What I gather is the linked article at Slate seems more ominous than this sounds.

The Slate article is sensationalistic, like most news these days, designed to make people feel outrage.

From the brief, I understand that Google took code and changed it (which may or may not be against the terms) and then redistributed it (via the SDK? the Android OS?) for developers to use.

Java was designed with the intention of every implementation to be 100% compatible.....the same APIs, the same runtime, etc. When Google made Android, they used an incompatible version of Java (mainly changing UI code, but also the runtime and some other things). They used Java to make things easier for developers.

So now the question is whether it is allowed for Google to do that, or if Oracle has the right to stop them. This isn't about whether you are violating copyright if you use a language, and that's one area the Slate article seems confused.

It is also not about whether you can use an API for interoperability purposes. That is covered by fair use, and will still be covered by fair use, no matter how this case is decided. But interoperability not why Android used Java.......Android used Java to make it easier for developers to write programs for their system.

Re: SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

Google took zero code from Oracle. Google took code from a 3rd party implementation and followed the licence for that implementation.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[garyisabusyguy]

Nice summary, but beyond the intention that all Java implementations be 100% compatible, Sun released much of Java under GNU GPL in 2006.
I will admit up front that I tried to read the GNU licensing back in the early 90's and I found it to be such a tar-pit-trap of self referencing and whole creation of terminology that I have felt ill towards Stallman ever since

I believe that this litigation may be the ultimate dissection of the GNU GPL and I am more than interested in seeing how the Supreme Court parses it all out.
While I totally agree with you that the intent of Oracle may be for compatibility, the intent of the GPL certainly supports modification as long as the modified code continues to support the GPL

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

I believe that this litigation may be the ultimate dissection of the GNU GPL and I am more than interested in seeing how the Supreme Court parses it all out.

The most likely scenario is that the supreme court will decline to hear the case, and it will be sent back to a lower court to see if Google can make a case for fair use (which might involve the GPL).

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Jane Q. Public]

Java was designed with the intention of every implementation to be 100% compatible.....the same APIs, the same runtime, etc.

Who are you trying to fool?

Of course that's the way Java was designed! But the very moment Oracle gained rights to it, Oracle started adjusting the code and the license to give Oracle unique compatibility and unique licensing. Anyone who thinks otherwise just hasn't watched it happen. Java is the single biggest RECENT reason people have accused Oracle of trying to kill open source. For a while MySQL took the headlines but that's done.

MySQL... same story in a nutshell. That's why nobody uses Oracle MySQL anymore. Everybody who is anybody is now running MariaDB as a drop-in replacement. (If you didn't read that correctly, I will intercept your snide remark: I stated "as a replacement for MySQL".)

The Javapocalypse hasn't happened yet under Oracle, but it's far past the time it was first expected. Yet, the situation hasn't really gotten better. Like MySQL, it's time someone else forked it HARD and took it away from Oracle. Otherwise it (intentionally) won't go anywhere.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also not about whether you can use an API for interoperability purposes. That is covered by fair use, and will still be covered by fair use, no matter how this case is decided. But interoperability not why Android used Java.......Android used Java to make it easier for developers to write programs for their system

I agree that the Slate article is sensationalistic -- mostly because it skips a few steps -- but I really don't understand some of your conclusions. The Microsoft thing was a trademark issue basically, and makes sense (use this name if you follow these rules), but it's very different from this... much of what this comes down to is many assuming some things would be fair use, while Oracle is saying they aren't: like the API! Styles and things like method names...

And yes, if the Supreme Court decides the APIs and such are copyrightable, we'll have one hell of a mess on our hands. As it's a short hop from the APIs being copyrightable to the method names and other stylings. At that point, fair use will only come into play when you're showing a code snipped in a book or website. It's craaaaaaaaaazy.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gl4ss]

the gist is the java support classes, like String etc, that they used. like, they're used exactly like oracles String class and more importantly named as such as well. if that's copyrightable or not... like if you make an api that uses com.phantomfive.java.superApi can someone else make an implementation of that api and use your naming?

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

It is also not about whether you can use an API for interoperability purposes. That is covered by fair use,

Sorry, but ripping the entire API and reimplementing it is not fair use. The copycat did not spend any effort in designing the API, so is not entitled to use it for free. If you want to share APIs, create a standard API that all competing vendors can share for reimplementation.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

The java API IS a standard API that all competing vendors can share for reimplementation. Or -at least - that's what we all thought. If the court rules against google, then no such thing can esist.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

The java API IS a standard API that all competing vendors can share for reimplementation.

Sorry, those APIs are still owned by Oracle, unless it is offering that free-of-charge for anyone to reimplement. If you want free-to-implement APIs, create a standards organization like IEEE or W3C that publishes standard APIs. Reimplementing some company's proprietary API is stupid anyway. You're entirely dependent on that company for your APIs.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Bing Tsher E]

Bullshit. If your point is correct, then Compaq's reverse engineered BIOS was illegal and the whole era of the PC Clone was a violation of IBM's IP rights. We'd need to pry the BIOS out of every PC Compatible in existence. And since IBM doesn't even make PCs anymore, that means we all cease using desktop and laptop PCs. It probably even applies to Apple by this point.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Rob Y.]

It depends on what you mean by 'entire API'. Modern computer languages are more than just the syntax and compiler. Even C would be pretty useless as a language without a standard set of libraries that every C app uses. sprintf is arguably not a library API, but an intergral part of the C language. Same goes for the classes in the 'java' API. Without them, it's not Java, and you can't claim that the language is freely implementable without those API's also being freely implementable. Otherwise, there are no standards at all.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Applehu Akbar]

If all Google has done is re-impolement the API using Oracle's names and calling sequences but its own code, then Oracle has no case. Or rather, the logical, nerdly conclusion would be that it has no case. Judges and lawyers may think otherwise.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

From the brief, I understand that Google took code and changed it (which may or may not be against the terms) and then redistributed it (via the SDK? the Android OS?) for developers to use.

Why not check the web first? Almost the entire case is about API copyrights.

The copyright phase consisted of several distinct claims of infringement: a nine-line rangeCheck function, several test files, the structure, sequence and organization of the Java Application Programming Interface (API), and the API documentation.

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

Here is the code Google copied:

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

https://majadhondt.wordpress.c...

It probably wasn't even copied, it was written by the same developer, who happened to use the same variable names for an uncreative piece of boiler plate code.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of whether you think API copyrights should exist or not, the case of Sun is special. Sun did not create many of those APIs in the first place, they were contributed by volunteers or copied from other languages. Furthermore, many people originally adopted Java because Sun had promised to make it an open standard, a promise they reneged on. Regardless of the legal issues, Sun/Oracle deserve to get screwed over for their long history of lies, deceptions, and misappropriation of other people's creative works.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[mark-t]

Copying the *name* of something is not ever a copyright infringement. Names are not copyrightable.

It may be a trademark infringement, however.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

So the implied logic here is Google only copied certain things, but not the whole thing, so it's okay to copy it for free?

Correct. Copyright only protects creative works, and its purpose is to encourage publication of creative works. APIs are not creative works. And even if they were, since the very nature of APIs makes it necessary to publish and document them, there is no need to provide a separate incentive.

Keep in mind that copyright doesn't exist to funnel money to corporations like Oracle, it exists to encourage people to create stuff.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

Copying the *name* of something is not ever a copyright infringement. Names are not copyrightable.

It's not just one name/word, but multiple names/words in a single API call, and thousands of API methods copied exactly, not just one or two.

Also, don't forget than an API declaration in Java syntax is useless without the API comment -- the documentation that tells you what the API does, what exactly are the inputs and outputs, and any limitations. That too was copied by Google.

We're not dealing with copying one word, but rather copying tens of thousands of words scattered throughout the Java Standard Library implementation.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

APIs are not creative works.

Based on what exactly? You're completely wrong.

Keep in mind that copyright doesn't exist to funnel money to corporations like Oracle, it exists to encourage people to create stuff.

Copyright encourages people/companies to create stuff by ensuring no one can copy/use their creation without payment, i.e., it blocks freeloaders.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[mark-t]

Except those words, because they are only *names*, are not collectively an expression of any kind of creative idea.. Alien languages such as what was presented in the ST:TNG episode "Darmok" notwithstanding, one generally needs to use far more than just nouns or proper nouns to produce a copyrightable creative work.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Applehu Akbar]

Google copied the name and calling sequences in the API, not Oracle's code. Since a code library is a functional extension of the language the API is for, Oracle is attempting to extend the concept of copyright to elements of the language itself. If it can do that, we lose another big chunk of our freedoms.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Based on what exactly? You're completely wrong.

Based on the current legal situation (they haven't received copyright protection in the past), and based on the fact that most of them are simply functional.

Copyright encourages people/companies to create stuff by ensuring no one can copy/use their creation without payment, i.e., it blocks freeloaders.

It's unproven that copyright accomplishes that even for the stuff it clearly applies to (books, music, etc.).

But as far as APIs are concerned, even that argument falls flat, since APIs are a necessary functional element of creating software, so they do not require any additional incentive for companies to create or publish.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Note that if Java's API were judged to be a creative work, then Java's APIs themselves would be violating many other copyrights, since they are derived from APIs found in Smalltalk, C++, and others.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

one generally needs to use far more than just nouns or proper nouns to produce a copyrightable creative work.

Because only literary works and works with sentences having proper grammar can be copyrighted? Who made up that rule?

This API issue is about creative expression, and with or without grammar, there is plenty of creative expression in designing APIs. Or is it a mindless and easy task so that you use can use a perl script to generate API for your library?

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

You seem to be confusing copyright with patents. Copyright deals with preventing copying of "expressions of ideas," whereas patents deal with preventing copying of "basic structure or operations" of ideas. What creative expression has Java copied from Smalltalk or C++?

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

Google copied the name and calling sequences in the API, not Oracle's code.

Technically, that API is also code because it's written in the Java language syntax. Why the double standards: API declaration code should not be copyrightable, it should be public domain, whereas API implementation can be copyrighted.

Since a code library is a functional extension of the language the API is for, Oracle is attempting to extend the concept of copyright to elements of the language itself.

False argument: a library is one functional extension of the language. You can create infinite different libraries for Java, and therefore the language has infinite different functional expressions.

Only a handful of classes are part of the language (java.lang.*), the rest are not part of the language.

If it can do that, we lose another big chunk of our freedoms.

What freedom is that? The freedom to copy other people's code for free?

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Bengie]

Android is using an opensource Java interpreter that existed before the idea of Android even existed. Heck, several Linux distros use it. If Oracle wins this, it's only a matter of time before they attempt to sue Linux for the exact same thing.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Applehu Akbar]

An API extends the function (not the syntax) of a language by allowing its users to do more things in some standard manner. Oracle can copyright the code with which it implements the API, but so far not the names and calling sequences it chooses for its library.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

it's only a matter of time before they attempt to sue Linux for the exact same thing.

For what? For Implementing standard POSIX APIs?

POSIX.1-2008 is simultaneously IEEE Std 1003.1â-2008 and The Open Group Technical Standard Base Specifications, Issue 7.

I don't think any single company owns a IEEE standard.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

Android is using an opensource Java interpreter that existed before the idea of Android even existed.

Not a problem if Oracle gives these distros a free license since it has few users. Android, on the other hand, has billions of users and Google has paid exactly $0 for Java the language or java the library.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

NB even if it is copyrightable, someone can still make an implementation under fair use: especially for interoperability purposes.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

Of course that's the way Java was designed! But the very moment Oracle gained rights to it, Oracle started adjusting the code and the license to give Oracle unique compatibility and unique licensing.

Really? What have they changed? I was trying to find the license earlier, but couldn't find it.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[mark-t]

Because only literary works and works with sentences having proper grammar can be copyrighted?

I didn't suggest that was the case... I only said it would take more than just reciting nouns. The nouns would actually need to be *USED* in some kind of creative fashion, and facts (such as saying that a particular noun exists, which is what the human-readable form of an API is) are not creative.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

but it's very different from this... much of what this comes down to is many assuming some things would be fair use, while Oracle is saying they aren't:

You are wrong here, the issue before the court is not fair use. In order for it to be fair use, the thing must be copyrightable in the first place. The question before the court is whether it is copyrightable in the first place (the answer is probably yes.......nearly everything is).

If the court decides APIs are copyrightable, the case will be sent back to a lower court to determine if Google has a fair use defense.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

Sorry, but ripping the entire API and reimplementing it is not fair use.

It can be fair use........for example, if the purpose is interoperability......but that is a defense Google would have to make.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Bengie]

Everyone knows the importance of software today and you cant just rip off IP

Won't someone think of the lawyers?! Ohh, yes, you. Thanks :-)

Pretty much all software is built on the shoulders of giants, all of the base work is math theory. The only parts of software that I can agree should be covered by IP is trademarks, User Interfaces, or raw source code.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

Copying for reverse engineering counts as fair use, even though the interface is copyrightable (and FWIW Apple uses UEFI).

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

How much would it cost for Google to license Java from Oracle? Also, why don't they use their "Go" language instead of Java if the intention is to save cost of licensing Java?

I don't think there is any case for interoperability since Android Java apps don't run on other platforms. Similarly, Java apps from other platforms don't run on Android OS.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Bengie]

Then Google switches to one of these distros, now what?

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

How much would it cost for Google to license Java from Oracle?

Oracle wants a billion at least.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

I only said it would take more than just reciting nouns. The nouns would actually need to be *USED* in some kind of creative fashion, and facts (such as saying that a particular noun exists

It's not all nouns. Class/Interface name: Noun or sentence fragment Method name: verb, sentence fragment or noun Method arguments: noun or sentence fragment I fail to see how an API containing all nouns would be comprehensible to any programmer using the API.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sorry, those APIs are still owned by Oracle

Isn't that the very issue the court is deciding? Your foregone conclusion may yet be invalidated.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnupun]

Every programming language has a different API to provide the exact same functionality to apps. How difficult would it be for Google to create another set of API methods that are different from the Java lib, but provide the same functionality as the Java lib?

The functionality of the java library is not patented, rather the expression (syntax) of the functionality is copyrighted. You can use different method names and argument names and change the scope of the method and class to differentiate from Java. In fact, that is exactly what Microsoft did when it cloned .Net from Java.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, make my day! Demand licence money for using java - and other languages will be used instead. So we'll finally get rid of Java. :-)

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnasher719]

NB even if it is copyrightable, someone can still make an implementation under fair use: especially for interoperability purposes.

"Fair use" in copyright law has a different meaning than "I'm using it, and what I'm doing is fair". Google can make a parody of Java and claim fair use :-)

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[gnasher719]

It probably wasn't even copied, it was written by the same developer, who happened to use the same variable names for an uncreative piece of boiler plate code.

And that's the important question, whether it was copied or not. Having identical code raises a strong suspicion of copying. However, if you threw away some code that I wrote last week and asked me to write it again, there's a good chance that the result would be identical. Especially for some trivial code like this, where the exact result of the function, including exceptions thrown, has been prescribed.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[phantomfive]

Dalvik could surely be called parody.......

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[mark-t]

That the name of a method may be an english verb does not change the fact that it is still a name and therefore a noun in that context.

Although designing the API requires creativity, what an API really amounts to when complete is a collection of factual statements of the form "such-and-such exists", which is a task that even a mindless computer can carry out.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

An API call in programming use is something like this:

| return type | |Name of function| ( |arguments given to function| );

In general overview, an API call looks like this:
1. (Do some work / task)

2. (Ask some library to do some work / task for us.) (This is the API call.)

3. (Do some more work / task possibly using the result of the API Call.)

For the in general overview, Java has not copied anything more than C++, Smalltalk, or any other language.

For the actual in programming use however it has copied somethings. This is because of the limited nature of the syntax. Put simply, although you can call a string container object "sighpghpjg234fy3r85q83", and expect people to use it when they need a string container object, that does not mean it makes sense to the programmer, is easy to remember, or maintain. Most programmers would expect a string container object to be some deviation of the word "string". As such many languages wind up coping some portion of the API of other languages with just the names of things. For example
std::string.length() in C++, has an exact copy in Java, String.length(). Both API calls do the same thing, (returns the length of the given string), and therefore is a literal copy. (See: For java and For C++)

Sometimes functionality for a given API call is identical between languages, but with different names depending on the exact language in question. For example: std::string.find() in C++, has an exact copy (functionality wise) in Java's String.indexOf() call. Both calls do the same thing, (return the starting index of a search term in a given string), the only difference is the name of the function itself. (find() VS. indexOf()) (See For java and For C++)

Now of course, to a computer all of this is irrelavent. All a computer sees is some variant of:
(system-defined jump / execution branch opcode) (destination address) (result storage address)

It depends on the system in question, but the overall result is always the same. The system jumps to the given address, executes the code it finds there, and when that code finishes, returns to the instruction that comes after the API call, and continues execution from that point. You could easily call an API function: "fksjfisijf" and the system will not care at all, because all it will see is: "0101010101 01011010 101010101010". The API call is just a human mnemonic for what a given function does so it's easier to remember and use for a programmer.

The only exception to this is when dynamic code is used. As that tends to require a parser at runtime, (a dynamic loader), to locate the API call's starting address in a table so that the program can use it. The program itself must know what API call to refer to, so that the loader can find it. The API library must also remain consistent (i.e. not change the API call) so that the loader can find the starting address for the API call that the program needs. If either of these is not true, the program will crash (due to an invalid address, argument, etc.), or it will not run / compile. (due to a link error.)

From a practical stand point, there is not (or rather shouldn't be) an issue. As the whole debate over coping an API call "design" or "expression" is entirely a human concept. Once again, although dynamic code can be used in a program, the computer itself does not care what you call it so long as the call does not change.

From an "Artistic" standpoint, you can't change the "expression of the idea" for an API call and expect it to work. (A computer DOES care about this.) You *could* create a new language every single time you needed to write a program, but you would have difficulty making it u

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

you can choose Intel or AMD CPUs to execute your x86 instructions.

You mean instructions like JMP which AMD blatantly stole the opcodes from Intel? Why can't Intel demand protection for the use of 0xEB 0xbb to instruct the computer to jump by signed bb bytes, but Sun/Oracle can claim protection for System.out.println() to instruct the computer to output an end-of-line character to the standard output?

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[amber_of_luxor]

> but rather copying tens of thousands of words scattered throughout the Java Standard Library implementation.

Which, in turn, are copied from other standard library implementations, at least as far back as The C Standard Library, and and The C Programming Language.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

What creative expression has Java copied from Smalltalk or C++?

The general structure and design of APIs. If APIs are copyrightable like literature, then translation of an API from Smalltalk to Java should fall under the original copyright just like translations do for literature. Even within the same programming language, literary plots can be copyrighted, so if APIs are copyrightable, then the structure of an API should also be protected, just like a literary plot. And if there is any creativity in the Java APIs at all, it is in just those parts that were "inspired" by Smalltalk and other languages.

In any case, I don't think APIs should enjoy any copyright protection and I think it would be very bad for the industry if API copyrights were created. However, if Oracle wins this case, at least it will kill that abomination called "Java", and I suppose that is a nice consolation prize.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

No, that's not really the question. Writing the same code from memory doesn't protect you against claims of copyright infringement.

The issue here is whether the code is "creative" and whether it is "substantial". Arguably, it is neither.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[knorthern knight]

> You mean instructions like JMP which AMD blatantly stole the opcodes from Intel?
> Why can't Intel demand protection for the use of 0xEB 0xbb to instruct the
> computer to jump by signed bb bytes, but Sun/Oracle can claim protection for
> System.out.println() to instruct the computer to output an end-of-line
> character to the standard output?

Old fart here... AMD was cross-licenced by Intel to produce 80x86 cpus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... This was done because many businesses, especially government, insisted that the components NOT be single-sourced. Ironically, this cross-licencing agreement is what allowed Intel to legally use AMD64 cpu architecture, which Intel named "EMT64".

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[jader3rd]

When Google made Android, they used an incompatible version of Java

That's always been Google mantra: embrace, extend, extinguish.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't copyright static void sort(List list, Comparator c) no matter what you or Oracle thinks.

There are a ton of method signatures in the Java API that are exactly the same as other languages API's.

If Oracle fools SCOTUS, they are going to get hammered with copyright lawsuits.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[vilanye]

Implementations are copyrightable and Google created their own implementations.

System.out.println(String s) is not, nor is does it take any sort of creativity to come up with method headers. In Java's case it was a lot of idiocy or alcohol. No one intelligent or sober would think System.out.println("java sucks") is an acceptable way to print to the console.

That is what this case is about method headers, not method implementations.

If Oracle wins, all future methods or functions will be named like fjdklfdsjfldsjjlsdjfdsoihghofgf(), because fjdklfdsjfldsjjlsdjfdsoihghofg() was already copyrighted.
   

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[vilanye]

Every language has a print() function/method.

You seem to be incapable of grasping the difference between function definitions and implementation.

You are arguing that table of contents or a list of ingredients and amounts in a recipe and the name of the recipe should be copyrightable. Neither can be, and they are no different than API definitions.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[vilanye]

Having identical code raises a strong suspicion of copying

Hardly

Any sane rangeCheck method is going to look the same. Unless you think changing the names of arrayLen, fromIndex and toIndex is required.

The algorithm is simple and will look the same.

Rewrite it so it is sane, works the same way but looks significantly different. Good luck

Even if this method was copied? So what? An "original" implementation is going to be identical except for argument names.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[AK Marc]

Copyright is unrelated to effort. Someone who automates the scanning of the White Pages, and puts the results online has violated no copyright, despite magnitudes less effort to mine a copyrighted work and re-distribute something equivalent. A painting that's a blank canvas with one stroke across it, at 10s of effort and $0.10 of paint, is copyrighted the same as any new work.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[AK Marc]

You sound like the people who thought the White Pages should be protected. How did that work out?

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[AK Marc]

Everyone knows the importance of software today and you cant just rip off IP worth tens of millions for $0.

That's not a standard for IP laws. Copyright covers creative works. Just because something was hard, doesn't mean it's "IP" or protected.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[AK Marc]

Given that none of the "creative"portion of the API is used, it's hard to claim that a reverse-engineer with no overlapping "creative" element would be a violation.

It's like making a frame for an existing artwork. The frame itself is copyrighted, as is the original work, but the original artist has no say in the frame, nor is the frame a violation of copyright of the initial work, despite having had to use a trivial amount of the creative work (its dimensions) to make the frame.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[harryjohnston]

Not at all. I have a number of C programs that (quite deliberately) do not use the standard library at all.

Having the standard C library - so that at least some parts of your code don't need to be rewritten for each operating system - is certainly convenient, but it is far from essential.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[Dog-Cow]

You deserve to die in a most horrible and painful manner -- just for being the most stupid poster on slashdot.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[shutdown -p now]

Don't forget that things like NULL, size_t, ptrdiff_t or va_list are also part of the standard library. Avoiding them is not always possible - e.g. NULL is easy to avoid because you can just use 0, but if you need to portably store the result of a sizeof, you need size_t; and for pointer subtraction, ptrdiff_t. In any case, even if you avoid spelling those out explicitly, the language spec still references them when describing the corresponding language constructs, so you can't fully decouple the two.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[harryjohnston]

My point is that if (hypothetically speaking) the next specification of C left all that stuff out, it would still be a useful language. *Less* useful, but not useless.

(I don't need size_t because I can use ULONG_PTR. Signed pointer arithmetic is best avoided IMO, but if you force me to do it I have LONG_PTR. If there were no standard library, there would probably be an implementation-defined replacement for va_list, but if not, I can do without it; if necessary, I can always pass an array of pointers. No problem.)

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[shutdown -p now]

My point is that if (hypothetically speaking) the next specification of C left all that stuff out, it would still be a useful language. *Less* useful, but not useless.

More importantly, it would be a different language :)

My point, though, is that the division between "language" and "standard library" is rather arbitrary, and very vague in many cases. In case of something like size_t, for example, it could just as well be defined in the language, rather than being a typedef (indeed, at least MSVC actually used to define it that way, even though it's not strictly conforming). Or addition and multiplication could be in the library, if C had operator overloading (or we were okay with function syntax for them).

To that extent, it doesn't really make sense to talk about "just the language". The language, as defined, is unable to exist in a vacuum. Languages like C, which are often used in constrained environments, usually define subsets of the standard library that are only as large as they need to be to support the core language constructs.

In C, in particular, the standard calls it "freestanding environment". In C99, this gives you float.h, iso646.h, limits.h, stdarg.h, stdbool.h, stddef.h, and stdint.h. As you can see, these are all just typedefs and macros - no functions there. But those are the things that are critical in that the language constructs reference them.

I don't need size_t because I can use ULONG_PTR.

Signed pointer arithmetic is best avoided IMO

You can't really avoid it because it's part of the language. You're doing it every time you're writing something like a[i], since it's just syntactic sugar for *(a+i). Of course, the types aren't explicit there, but the spec still has to deal with them.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[harryjohnston]

I don't think the distinction is necessarily unimportant just because it is fuzzy. But I don't feel all that strongly about it.

As for signed pointer arithmetic: a[i] isn't really a good example because i has to be positive. But I was wrong anyway - I was thinking about things like this but now that I look at it again, the language really does need to let you subtract pointers and get a negative answer - the real problem in that example is the silly implicit conversion from signed to unsigned.

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[shutdown -p now]

As for signed pointer arithmetic: a[i] isn't really a good example because i has to be positive.

It doesn't, actually, if `a` is a pointer into the middle of another array (and semantically both array and pointer indexing is actually the same, because the former is defined in terms of the latter in the spec; so the index is treated as signed in both cases).

Note that the language indirectly prohibits the existence of an array that has more elements than ptrdiff_t can account for. This is because &a[n]-&a[0], where n is the count of elements, is always legal for any array, and is of type ptrdiff_t. So in effect the maximum size of the array has an upper bound of the largest signed number available in that particular implementation (because ptrdiff_t must be a typedef corresponding to some signed integral type).

Re:SFLC's brief explains parts of this well

[harryjohnston]

But i does have to be positive if a is an array, and that's the only case that matters in this context - the point being that the language could still implement arrays by defining a[i] as meaning *(a+i), even if pointer arithmetic was constrained to be unsigned.

Godzilla

[Whiteox]

We are all aware that Godzilla is now a citizen of Japan?

Jurisdiction

[rossdee]

The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction outside of the USA.
So this isn't going to affect Klingons

Re:Jurisdiction

[Black Parrot]

Unless they visit the USA.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Ironlenny]

Paramount Studios (owners of Star Trek, and a US company) would be affected.

Re: Jurisdiction

[Incadenza]

No need to enter the country to fall under US jurisdiction. Just have a US bank account will do.

Re:Jurisdiction

[future assassin]

But doesn't the studio own the Klingon worlds? Once the Klingon's go back to work on the world sets then the studio control them. Outside of the studios when not on company time they are free.

Re: Jurisdiction

[BlueStrat]

No need to enter the country to fall under US jurisdiction. Just have a US bank account will do.

Or post leaked information on the internet that the US government does not want exposed, no matter if you're not a US citizen nor received/published the information within the borders of the US or it's Territories.

That's just how fascists roll.

Strat

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. That's what all those secret trade agreements are for.

Re:Jurisdiction

[ultranova]

The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction outside of the USA.
So this isn't going to affect Klingons.

Google knows the Klingon Emperor's fetishes while Oracle helps keep his secret Ferenginar bank accounts organized. The US Supreme Court is a helpful referee so the two won't inflict contradictory blackmail on the helpless absolute ruler and leave him - and everyone below him - with no good options. Because it's so well-organized and considerate of consequences, corruption is hardly worthy of the name anymore, but simply another mechanism of society Worf Average doesn't really have to worry about - heck, it actually benefits him since it encourages solving various crises behind the scenes before they can cause serious disruption.

Or at least that's how it would work in the utopian Star Trek future.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Klingon justice is an interesting concept...

Re:Jurisdiction

[Rob Y.]

But the TPP wants to extend US Copyright terms to a lot of new jurisdictions. So, watch out Klingons - if you happen to live along the Pacific rim.

The TPP may not be an entirely bad thing, and Obama may not be lying about that. But without fixing US intellectual property laws, extending them to the world negates any possible good aspects of these trade agreements. So no TA's without fixing US law, please. And of course, there will be no fixing US law until this same Supreme Court decides that it's really not a good thing to have bribery as the basis of our entire political system...

Re: Jurisdiction

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Like all courts, SCOTUS has jurisdiction where it can enforce its rulings. That means on US territory, against people with US bank accounts, against companies doing business on US soil, against people who travel to the US, against nations the US invades, etc. That isn't rocket science, and it has nothing to do with "fascism".

Re:Jurisdiction

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

But without fixing US intellectual property laws, extending them to the world negates any possible good aspects of these trade agreements.

US intellectual property laws are no more broken than those abroad. Much of US intellectual property law is the result of international agreements that were imposed on the US by European publishers (e.g., the Berne convention). A lot of recent US intellectual property law is the result of lobbying by international corporations and foreign governments, both as a way of policy laundering and because the US is such a big and important market.

And finally, the perception that US intellectual property law is particularly broken results from the fact that in the US, people at least complain about these bogus laws, while Europeans don't even know how draconian and oppressive their laws are; much of Europe has no fair use, perpetual intellectual property rights, copyrights on text snippets, and has "copyright societies" with mandatory memberships and fees for many media.

Re: Jurisdiction

[BlueStrat]

Like all courts, SCOTUS has jurisdiction where it can enforce its rulings. That means on US territory, against people with US bank accounts, against companies doing business on US soil, against people who travel to the US, against nations the US invades, etc. That isn't rocket science, and it has nothing to do with "fascism".

Tell that to Julian Assange. The US wants to bury the guy under the prison, and has and still is going to incredible lengths to get their fascistic hands him.

Strat

Re: Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Julian Assange. The US wants to bury the guy under the prison, and has and still is going to incredible lengths to get their fascistic hands him.

Right now, Assange is on the run from Sweden, not the US. However, if the US gets its hands on Assange in Europe, it will be because of bilateral extradition treaties between the US and Europe. Europe is free to cancel those any time it wants.

Oh, and from personal experience, I assure you: you should be a lot more concerned about fascism in Europe, because it's alive and widespread. The US may be imperialistic and a bully, but it's much further from fascism than pretty much all of Europe.

Re: Jurisdiction

[david_thornley]

Some politicians called for his head, but at least in the US you can always find politicians willing to say any stupid thing to sound like they're doing what their constituents want. There was a legal investigation in the US, because Assange might have helped Manning get the classified information out, and that's espionage. If Manning acted alone, then Assange did nothing illegal.

However, there seem to be a fair number of people who think the US is after Assange by any means, to the point of absurdity.

Look, guys, if the US had wanted Assange to be sent to the US, they would have filed an extradition request with the UK, which historically has pretty much just rolled over for US extradition requests. This would not require going to incredible lengths. Instead, to conform with the facts we have a scenario in which the CIA is trying to extradite Assange to Sweden, which does not have the reputation of a US lapdog, and be put into a situation in which both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to a US extradition request.

If Assange had really been afraid of being sent to the US, he wouldn't have been in the UK in the first place. That's a really bad place if you fear an extradition request from the US.

Swell

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean no-one will be allowed to speak silly made-up languages anymore without paying royalties? If this is the case I'm all for it. People should learn real-world languages, not stupid fictional stuff that has no use whatsoever. Waste of time and resources in this age is criminal.

Re:Swell

[Anonymous Coward]

So no speaking in tongues?

Re: Swell

[Anonymous Coward]

Waste of time and resources in this age is criminal.

Not if there's no law against it. What do you do for recreation? How would you feel if I declared it as criminal just because I didn't agree with it?

Re:Swell

[Zontar The Mindless]

All languages are "made up".

Re:Swell

[Anne Thwacks]

Not without authorisation from God - IN WRITING - witnessed by two duly appointed public commissioners for oaths and a pope.

Re: Swell

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if there's no law against it. What do you do for recreation? How would you feel if I declared it as criminal just because I didn't agree with it?

Oh, it's becoming increasingly easy to make illegal activities that are perceived as out of place, potentially dangerous or simply weird. You can, of course try to have my pastimes declared criminal, you're welcome to make an attempt, but you will fail. You see, what I do for recreation is considered socially acceptable - and positive - by the vast majority of the population. My activities are shared by a lot and looked up to as normal and desirable by everyone except lowlife geeks. So, any attempt by you weirdo nerdo to touch them would be seen as out of place and would mark you for attention. Deal with it, nerdoid: nobody likes you lot. Nobody. We can make TV series and whatever to make fun of "nerds" but we cast attractive actors to play endearing caricatures that make us laugh. Successful entrepreneurs like Bill Gates may enjoy picturing themselves as "nerds" but they most certainly are not. The real nerd is a social abomination, a weirdo, possibly a pedophile. When you crawl out of your holes everybody looks at you and thinks "stranger danger". Nobody is interested in your shit. The sooner we legislate you out of existence, the better.

Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AGPL

[Anonymous Coward]

If an API is copyrightable... then using an API is a derivative work.

If invoking an API is a derivative work of the API, then the Linux kernel is actually as infectious as the Affero GPL, and so are network APIs. Ruling in Oracle's favor will destroy the internet.

Re:Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AGPL

[phantomfive]

If invoking an API is a derivative work of the API, then the Linux kernel is actually as infectious as the Affero GPL, and so are network APIs.

The Linux kernel clearly defines userland software as not being derivative. You can see it here. Networking APIs are part of the POSIX standard so that's not a problem, and network protocols can be copied under fair use for interoperability purposes.

Note that "calling an API" is not the question before the court. The question is whether you can copy the collection of APIs as a system for other people to call. No matter how this ruling goes, you will still be able to call an API as before.

Re:Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AGPL

[mark-t]

If an API is copyrightable... then using an API is a derivative work.

Only in the same sense that someone who learns how to speak English by watching television shows, which are copyrighted, is making a derivative work of multiple sources every time he or she says anything.

Re:Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AGPL

[Anonymous Coward]

If an API is copyrightable... then using an API is a derivative work.

Or ... maybe using the API is a transformative act (like that guy who makes a living tilting other people's copyrighted photos and selling them for $90k each. Law ain't simple.

I don't get it

[msobkow]

Why can't Google just ship an OpenJDK build for ARM instead of screwing around with breaking the portability contract of the byte code?

This whole situation is the most asinine pissing match I have seen since SCO...

Re:I don't get it

[phantomfive]

Why can't Google just ship an OpenJDK build for ARM instead of screwing around with breaking the portability contract of the byte code?

The biggest thing they changed from Java was removing all the UI code (Swing and AWT). That wouldn't have been very useful on a phone, and leaving it out saved space. (Sun had a version of Java that didn't have the UI code, but J2ME isn't open source, you have to pay for it).

I have no idea why they didn't use the same bytecode. Their own implementation was rather lousy and had strange bugs like this one.

Re:I don't get it

[phantomfive]

I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

You might also add.....I am never wrong; as soon as I am wrong, I switch sides and them I'm right again.

Re:I don't get it

[tlambert]

Why can't Google just ship an OpenJDK build for ARM instead of screwing around with breaking the portability contract of the byte code?

For the same reason that they went with Dalvik, and the same reason their libc is derived from BSD libc (Bionic), instead of GLibc: to get out from under the license, and allow, indisputably, commercial code for which source code is not provided, and to (effectively) technologically, rather than merely legally, indemnify developers, in order to attract commercial developers to the platform.

Oracle has tried to get a piece of Android on and off for years, the same way it tried to get a piece of Linux, and the same way it bought out MySQL and the BSD dbm libraries, when they couldn't legally raise their hand against them.

Re: I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

That strange bug speaks more about Facebook developers than it does about Android.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get me wrong, GPL and FOSS is better than commercial, but if we expect the industry to respect GPL, so we need to respect the terms of others - as long as they are legal. If you suspect TOS/Copyright are not legal, you can choose not to use the product or challenge the license / copyright in courts. But you don't get to ignore other's copyright and TOS, sell billions of copies of stuff with dubious legal standing and only then claim, oh - I understood the terms, but thought they were not legal.

... allow, indisputably, commercial code for which source code is not provided ...

Indisputably? Ahem...

Dalvik doesn't get anybody out of any license, nor was that the intention. Certainly not GPL3 or Java EULA and copyright which at the centre of the dispute. If you think it does, please spec which aspect of which license and which court ruled so.

Anybody can make a VM and release it under any terms, as did IBM, Symantec, Microsoft and many others, including non-commercial and foss implementations. They could have built their own, forked an existing one, or taken one off the shelf - sticking with Java bytecode - and still stake a claim similar to the one you propose. Instead, they deliberately chose to ingore the license. For that, they - and all android vendors - will pay, and keep paying.

Re:I don't get it

[Bing Tsher E]

You might also add.....I am never wrong; as soon as I am wrong, I switch sides and them I'm right again.

That's a process we call learning.

Knowledge doesn't have a leaderboard.

Re:I don't get it

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Why can't Google just ship an OpenJDK build for ARM instead of screwing around with breaking the portability contract of the byte code?

Because OpenJDK is bloated and slow, and because it comes with unacceptable legal restrictions attached to it.

Re:I don't get it

[elwinc]

Actually, Sun Microsystems made a VM and, in 2006, released it under the GPL. So the only real question at this point is whether there is anything in Dalvic that was not released by Sun in 2006-7. Oracle can hope for control over a few small crumbs, but most of the cookies in the Java jar have been free and open source for over 9 years.

Re:I don't get it

[shutdown -p now]

If I remember correctly, Sun/Oracle asserted certain rights with respect to third-party JVM implementations that ran on mobile platforms. I don't recall the precise arrangement there - I think it had to do with the use of "Java" as a trademark, but perhaps there were some patents, too. Either way, as I understand, by using their own VM and bytecode, Google tried to clearly distance themselves away from JVM, and thus dodge the bullet.

So in layman's terms...

[tlambert]

So in layman's terms... the SFLC want the Supreme to refuse to hear the case, because they think that the copying of a trivial function, difficult to implement in any other embodiment, allows a "thin end of the wedge" argument in favor of GPL'ing everything on Android.

They specifically cite the Lotus v. Borland case in support of this.

They specifically avoid citing the Ashton Tate v. Fox Software case, because doing so would contradict their claims, and weaken the argument that the Supreme court should hear the case.

Clearly, someone needs to file an Amicus brief citing Ashton Tate v. Fox Software, and suggest that the brief needs to be heard.

Re:So in layman's terms...

[phantomfive]

They specifically avoid citing the Ashton Tate v. Fox Software case,

how does Ashton Tate v Fox Software relate to this? That case was thrown out on a technicality, and was eventually dropped.

Re:So in layman's terms...

[Jane Q. Public]

While those of us who remember must agree that Ashton Tate was a big deal at the time, I also agree that a case which was not heard is also not a precedent. If it were, every ridiculous suit brought by anybody would constitute legal precedent, and our legal system would grind to a halt. About 180 years ago.

Re:So in layman's terms...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unclean hands is not a mere technicality. It is a death blow; not only to your ongoing case but to any possible similar suits you might have wanted to file against different competitors.

And Borland was forced to drop the case by the DOJ in order to be alloweed to purchase Aston Tate

http://www.foxprohistory.org/ashton_sues_fox.htm

Re:So in layman's terms...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the litigants in this case have sufficient legal and financial resources to put forth every conceivable argument. Really really wanting the law to correspond to one's preferences is not a legal argument.

Re:So in layman's terms...

[mark-t]

I saw it as even less than copying of a trivial function, but rather simply copying the *name* of that function to do the same thing.

Copyright doesn't protect the names of things... trademarks do. Is Oracle planning on arguing that they have trademarked the names of every Java api function that Google happens to have used the same name for?

Re:So in layman's terms...

[phantomfive]

Unclean hands is not a mere technicality.

It's a technicality because it's unrelated to the main questions of the case.

I had to laugh when I read this...

[mark-t]

Oracle, the appeals court, and the Department of Justice think that owning a copyright on a language isnâ(TM)t a big deal, because others can always invent new words rather than copying

Of course, the enormous flaw in this notion is that if you always have to invent new words simply to avoid copying anyone else, then nobody else is actually going to understand you. This is particularly true for things like spoken or written languages, but carries an element of truth to it for computer languages as well. While inventing any language can arguably already be challenging, inventing one that other people will actually use or adopt is usually either a function of the notoriety of the inventor, a matter of blind luck, or some combination of the two.

Since it can be argued that copyright provides a mechanism for otherwise possibly unknown artists to publish their works on the same relatively level playing field as those who may have already gained some notoriety, it seems I think that suggesting that such things should somehow be copyrightable is even at best wholly counter-productive.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[msobkow]

Yet if you think of an API as being the chapter-titles of a book, what you're saying is that it's ok to steal all the titles from an existing work and write your own chapter contents. I don't see where or why the API of a system would not be under copyright -- the whole point of licenses like the LGPL is to let you use the interface explicitly whereas the GPL denies you the right to use the interface without publishing your code.

Just because someone wants to use your API really, really badly doesn't mean they have the legal right to do so any more than they have the right to use the rest of your code without permission.

Something which is a published standard like the ABIs for Linux are another matter entirely -- the interface is treated as an abstract work separate from the implementation. But I don't see anything in the way Java is licensed that would lead to the interpretation that it's API is a standard managed by some oversight organization instead of a corporate entity.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard disclaimers apply: I am not a lawyer and this should not be construed as legal advice.

First, you don't steal titles from an existing work. Stealing has a very specific legal definition and in the context of law commentary, it's very important that you don't fuck it up.

Second, yes, using the same titles is, in fact, okay.

Third, that specific licenses allow you to use interfaces or not explicitly is irrelevant. Copyright enforces the wishes of the copyrighter in how distribution works. Unless you have some evidence that the Java platform is licensed in this way, this point is completely irrelevant. And it seems to me that you might be hoisted upon your own petard.

Fourth, what does it take to be a standard in your mind? What is your opinion on the Java platform documentation? Because it seems pretty well-specified to me. Java also has a language and VM spec that are published specifications. How do "oversight organization" and "corporate entity" automatically differ?

Re: I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, why do you declare a disclaimer posting as AC? Weird.

Other than that, very well said.

Just to add, Java is run by an oversight body, the JCP, Java Community Process. This body takes decisions on what goes into the language, and specifies the interfaces, sometimes also parta of the implementation.

Re: I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Link to the JCPand their published standards, the JSRs (Java Specification Requests). The JCP is legally independent from Oracle, and althoug Oracle could decide not to listen to the JCP any longer, the JCP could continue to operate on its own. It has representatives from many companies from all over the globe, and the body certainly sees itself as a veritable standards defining organization.in fact ao much that people think being on one of their commitees declares some kind of knighthood in the Java universe (which I doubt entirely, but that's another matter).

https://jcp.org/en/home/index

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[silentcoder]

Wrong.
  The GPL prevents linking via API to existing GPL'd libraries. It does not stop you from writing your own library with the exact same method declarations but your OWN implementation.
What google did is specifically NOT prevented by the GPL either.

The GPL focusses on linking because that means MY implementation is used by your code. If you write your own library with the same declarations and your own implementation - then even though your application code is unchanged, I no longer hold a claim.

Indeed most of GNU's libraries (both those under the GPL like readline and those under the LGPL like glibc) could not have existed if Oracle is right - since they were mostly re-implementations of long-existing APIs that every Unix OS ever developed also included. LibC in particular - EVERY unix since the very first Bell Labs one has had a generic C library - and they all implemented essentially the same core set of functions. Their APIs are all virtually identical yet they were all deemed legal and all under their own distinct copyrights. Some were proprietory, some were BSD licensed (i.e. the libc's in every BSD today) and GNU made theirs LGPLd.

A better example would be the wine project. Wine reimplemented just about the entire windows API - all the calls are identical - so identical that you can run windows programs and games with Wine - but every implementation written from scratch as a clean-room reverse-engineer process. That has been legal for many, many years -this case threatens that. It would make it possible for Microsoft to get Wine declared illegal.

If this is illegal Wine would actually be MORE illegal since it is much more compatible with the original API than Android is with Java. In fact that is Oracle's entire PR about this matter: that they are trying to sue google for NOT making the API ENTIRELY compatible with theirs !

Disclaimer: I am a former Oracle engineer, I quite my job because I could not in good conscience keep working for the company that filed this suit !

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet if you think of an API as being the chapter-titles of a book,

Why would you think that? An API has wildcards in it, the values of the variables passed to and from it. Not to mention the the defined behavior (side effects) of the API. Chapter titles have some meaning as defined by the language they are expressed in but no wild cards and no defined behavior.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

So: if we assume a flawed metaphor then the issue is clearly unambiguous?

Thanks for shining a light on the subject for us Captain Strawman!

Here, let me try:
"Yet if you think of Oracle as a bunch of baby molesting terrorists then the Supreme Court should obviously intervene to wreck their shit"

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet if you think of an API as being the chapter-titles of a book, what you're saying is that it's ok to steal all the titles from an existing work and write your own chapter contents.

Sweet! I'll make a fortune after I copyright "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2" and so on. Maybe I'll even apply for a patent for "a method to apply incremental values to natural breaks in blocks of writing" and really clean up. Don't want to let people get away with using those pesky Roman Numerals or anything like that without giving me my money.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[gnupun]

Second, yes, using the same titles is, in fact, okay [copyright.gov].

The pdf states "Copyright not available for titles and short phrases." But the table of contents of a book is not one phrase, rather it is a sequence of dozens of phrases. So it should be copyrightable, like API.

Google has copied the premise of the book (Java platform), its table of contents (API) and rewritten the text within the chapters (reimplementing API) but keeping the same ToC. It should license the stuff it copied (API/ToC).

Fourth, what does it take to be a standard in your mind? What is your opinion on the Java platform documentation?

Oracle still owns the standard. Just because something is standardized by a company, does not mean it is free to use by other entities.

Re: I had to laugh when I read this...

[Livius]

Because people need to know that legal information may be informative in general but is still not necessarily a legal opinion and people should be able to make informed decisions about how far they will follow whatever is suggested.

Behaving ethically pretty much proves he's not a lawyer, but it's nice that it's explicit.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[gnupun]

You can't copyright generic and short phrases like chapter 1, chapter 2 anyway. There is no creative expression of ideas there.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[msobkow]

You're making the mistake of confusing programming to an API with the API itself. The arguments to a method of an API have named variables, not a wildcard list of arguments. They are well-defined and specific, even if they take a generic list of objects as their trailing argument, the fact that it takes a list of objects is specified.

As to others who have questioned what it takes to qualify as a "standard":

Unless an API is explicitly published for the purpose of use by alternative implementations, it is proprietary. Can you imagine what would happen if you tried to clone the SalesForce API in a competing product? It's all up to the interpretation and licensing granted by the publisher of the API as to whether it is a "standard" for competing products or a "proprietary" interface only for use by their own product line.

It doesn't matter whether it is designed by a committee, designed by an individual, designed by a corporation, or designed by a "regular" standard's body. What matters is the intent of the publication license, if any.

Remember that the default for published works is that all rights are reserved by the copyright holder unless they grant permissions, not that it is under the public domain.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[msobkow]

There are far more companies and individuals with APIs for their products that allow extension and customization who are not "standards" than there are products whose interfaces have been explicitly coded to published standards whose licenses grant other parties the right to code to them.

Take, for example, SalesForce. They have an API. But they'd sue the schite out of you if you tried to claim it is a "standard" and use their API in a competing product.

Whether an API is a "standard" or not is entirely up to the publisher of the API. The default in North America is not that things fall under the public domain, but that the rights remain with the publisher unless they've granted explicit authorization.

As to the question of whether you should be able to copyright an API, I don't have any doubts that it should be copyrightable. See my point on the number of companies who rely on their interfaces not being clonable by competitors. A lot of effort goes into a well written and thought out interface. In fact, the interface is often half the design of a product. It deserves protection from those who think they can take anything they want if they just want it badly enough.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[gnupun]

A lot of effort goes into a well written and thought out interface. In fact, the interface is often half the design of a product. It deserves protection from those who think they can take anything they want if they just want it badly enough.

I fully agree with this. Designing a good API can often be far more difficult and creative task than implementing it, considering you can easily change the implementation later but not the API.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Unless an API is explicitly published for the purpose of use by alternative implementations, it is proprietary.

APIs have historically not been protected by copyrights, therefore they haven't been "proprietary" (i.e., they haven't been owned). If they had been proprietary, the world would look very different today.

Remember that the default for published works is that all rights are reserved by the copyright holder

Yes, but not everything you publish is copyrightable. The question isn't whether people can arbitrarily violate Oracle's copyright, it's whether Oracle has a copyright in the first place.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[phantomfive]

Yes. In fact, an interface can last longer than code.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[phantomfive]

APIs have historically not been protected by copyrights,

Since 1980, they have.

In many cases, creating your own implementation is fair use (and indeed, Google's copying of Oracle may also be fair use), which is why you are allowed to create your own implementation for interoperability purposes. But Google here did not copy Java for interoperability purposes. If they had, there wouldn't be a problem.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[mark-t]

Instead, they imitated Java so that it would be easier for programmers to adapt to.

Kind of like how as children when we are learning how to talk, we copy what we hear other people say so that they understand us.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[phantomfive]

Instead, they imitated Java so that it would be easier for programmers to adapt to.

Yes, that is why they are in court. Incidentally, if the supreme court declines to hear this case, it is still not over......it will be sent down to a lower court to hear Google's fair use defense.

Kind of like how as children when we are learning how to talk, we copy what we hear other people say so that they understand us.

Copyright laws handle that situation.

Re: I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

+5. Takes guts to dump an employer doing shady shit. Grats to you my friend, we need more like you.

Re: I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what we are trying to tell you. You must be a fucking shill. Get that gnu out of your name, you are a poser.

Re: I had to laugh when I read this...

[silentcoder]

Thank you. Though I confess upon deciding to do so I didn't act immediately, I got myself another job first.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[gnasher719]

The GPL prevents linking via API to existing GPL'd libraries. It does not stop you from writing your own library with the exact same method declarations but your OWN implementation. What google did is specifically NOT prevented by the GPL either.

I wouldn't put it that way. It's just that copying the library is very, very obvious covered by copyright law, and copying the API is much less obviously covered by copyright law. If it is covered by copyright law, then it is covered by GPL, and if it is not covered by copyright law then it isn't.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[gnasher719]

You can't copyright generic and short phrases like chapter 1, chapter 2 anyway. There is no creative expression of ideas there.

So what about this:

Chapter 1, in which Phileas Fogg and Passepartout accept each other, the one as master, the other as man.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Since 1980, they have.

That's bullshit. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion and this case wouldn't be going to SCOTUS.

http://bfy.tw/Ctv

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[phantomfive]

this case wouldn't be going to SCOTUS.

This case isn't going to SCOTUS.....they will decline to hear it because the appellate court gave the correct decision.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[tepples]

Kind of like how as children when we are learning how to talk, we copy what we hear other people say so that they understand us.

Copyright laws handle that situation.

In what way do U.S. copyright law and harmonized EU copyright law handle language acquisition by a child? Is it that natural languages came into existence before 1923?

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[phantomfive]

I don't know much about EU copyright law, but in America, the child utters something original and interesting, it is copyrighted.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[tepples]

Which in turn raises the question: Are a child's utterances really original, or are they derivative of the set of words that the parents use?

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[phantomfive]

If the parents have evidence, they can sue. You can't copyright single words, though.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

This case isn't going to SCOTUS.....they will decline to hear it because the appellate court gave the correct decision

Well, I'm so happy for you that you are smarter than legions upon legions of lawyers, judges, and legal analysts! I mean, what more rational decision could Google have made than clearly and willfully violating Sun's/Oracle's copyright!

Really, man, you are an idiot.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC

You're making the mistake of confusing programming to an API with the API itself.

No mistake. The full API includes those things I mentioned. The written text is just part of it. The written text is not a complete work in itself and it should not be treated as such. The fact that the wildcards have names is not relevant. Would you be happy with somebody taking the API and and changing all the variables names (not procedure names) with something identical in meaning but different in text? I think not. In addition the API is a minor part when considered as part of the caller or callee's text and should be treated as such.

Or to put it another way an API is a structured language for communication between caller and callee. Languages are not copyrightable.

It doesn't matter whether it is designed by a committee, designed by an individual, designed by a corporation, or designed by a "regular" standard's body. What matters is the intent of the publication license, if any.

Interoperability. Which would suggest copyright is not relevant. All you are arguing for is lockin. And that is not okay in any industry though it happens more often than it should.

Remember that the default for published works is that all rights are reserved by the copyright holder unless they grant permissions, not that it is under the public domain.

Not relevant - you are attempting to claim something is copyrightable because it is copyrightable and that is circular reasoning. You have not proven that the default or otherwise applies here.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[harryjohnston]

Copyright exists to benefit society. How does it benefit society for APIs to be copyrightable?

Re: I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, please - GNU wants copyright legislation as strong as it can be, so they can enforce their silly license as widely as possible.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL prevents linking via API to existing GPL'd libraries...The GPL focusses on linking because that means MY implementation is used by your code.

But that is the thing. Code doesn't "do" anything. The CPU and its owner are the ones doing things.

When you link to GPL code you aren't incorporating that implementation into your code. You're just referencing it by name.

If I write a recipe that says to add 1tsp of "Heinz Tomato Ketchup" to the pot, is that something that Heinz can legally block? Nobody is infringing on their rights - they're just referencing it by name.

The same is true when I stick the name of a symbol from a GPL library into my executable. I can't copied anything but the name. Most likely when the linker loads my program into RAM it won't even make an ephemeral copy of the library into memory, since it is likely already there having been loaded by another program.

So, how does copyright apply?

Re: I had to laugh when I read this...

[silentcoder]

The law is pretty clear that other does apply. If it doesn't then no libraries are copyrightable at all.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[david_thornley]

No, only if fixed in a tangible form. The words you utter are not copyrightable, although a prepared speech or record of a speech are.

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[phantomfive]

That wasn't what I was saying......I meant to say that if you write down a single word, the word itself is not copyrightable (even if you make up the word).

Re:I had to laugh when I read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, the FSF sees a program that links library functions as a combined work - a derived work of the GPL'd library under copyright law. I can see that, since your program would not run by itself without the library code.

Where I disagree with them is that dynamically linking to a library makes a combined work. On the face of it, that would make any Windows app that used a system DLL into a derived work of Windows... thus forfeiting to Microsoft all your rights under copyright.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic

Re:King Frosty The First

[Anonymous Coward]

Someday perhaps I'll bow down before you, Frosty. But not today!

Re: Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AGP

[Anonymous Coward]

In some APIs, "calling the API" involves implementing a provided interface and handing the reference over (eg DirectShow codecs). Where do you draw the line?

Re: Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AGP

[phantomfive]

In some APIs, "calling the API" involves implementing a provided interface and handing the reference over (eg DirectShow codecs). Where do you draw the line?

The line is fuzzy, because the law was not written clearly. That is a purpose of judges.....to clarify areas of the law that are not clear.

Re: Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AGP

[Anonymous Coward]

I draw the line in using directX and the rest of it in that do not use them.

API versus Look and Feel

[Taco Cowboy]

We nerds know what API is. Unfortunately most of the non-nerds out there can't grasp the concept of API

Most of them will eventually equate "API" with "look and feel" - and they will think that if Microsoft can get to defend their "Windows look and feel" of course Oracle can deny Google to use their Java API

Add to that Apple at one time obtained a 'rounded corner' patent, therefore, I will not be surprised if the SCOTUS ending up siding with Oracle

Re:API versus Look and Feel

[mark-t]

First, foremost, always and finally, API's are ultimately a collection of names. Names are not copyrightable entities.

The only way you can infringe on somebody's IP for copying a name of something is if that name was trademarked.... but trademark and copyright are two different things. Java may be trademarked, but that's not what Google copied... they copied the

NAMES

of the functions that are in Java. Unless Oracle can show they've trademarked the names that Google copied, I can't see how they can really win this one. There are also pretty strict rules on what is even allowed to be trademarked in the first place, and I would dare say that even *IF* Oracle tries to use that tactic, they would probably find that virtually none of the alleged infringements are actually trademarkable.

Re:API versus Look and Feel

[gnasher719]

First, foremost, always and finally, API's are ultimately a collection of names. Names are not copyrightable entities.

What makes you think that names are not copyrightable? We are not talking about real names of persons here, but made up names of functions, constants, and so on. In principle, some text is not copyrightable if it had to be the way it is and didn't require any creative effort. So the New York phone book isn't copyrightable, because it contains (except for mistakes) exactly the text that it should contain. But the names in an API may very well be copyrightable, because the creator of the API could have used any name they wanted.

Re:API versus Look and Feel

[mark-t]

Names are a subject for trademarks, not copyright.

Re:API versus Look and Feel

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you believe anyone mentioning captain Ahab by name while discussing Moby Dick is infringing on copyright? Sure, Ahab's name is copyrighted in the context of the text. When mentioned out of context however, in another work, such as a review, in order to facilitate that work's function, it would be totally and completely bonkers if mentioning Ahab's name was illegal. Same thing is going on in this case - names from one work are being used in another work to facilitate its function.

Re:API versus Look and Feel

[jabuzz]

No because Moby Dick went out of copyright years ago. An example of talking about Harry Potter and Hermione Granger for example would make more sense.

Re: Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AGP

[konohitowa]

Yes, yes, we all know you can draw lines with DirectX.

Google don't call it Java

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore they have nothing to answer for.

Java have a printf like statement that works like it does in C, copying the API of Stdlib C. This isn't a problem for Java because it isn't C, because it doesn't SAY or pretend it's C, therefore nobody is going to get deliberately confused by Oracle's use of the same API into thinking their language is C.

And it's the same here.

And it's why Microsoft's attempt WAS wrong: MS was calling it Java when it wasn't. If MS had SOLELY put the stuff that didn't copy the JAVA API into com.microsoft instead of sunjava, nobody would have had a problem, and Sun would have had no case if they'd tried.

That's called learning. Smart people do it

[Anonymous Coward]

> as soon as I am wrong, I switch sides and them I'm right again.

Changing your mind when presented with strong evidenxe or,logic is called LEARNING. That's how smart people become smart. Continuing to drfend a position that's clearly wrong is called intentional ignorance.

And all code is equally infectious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the infection isn't the license, it's the copyright.

Which all code has.

Nothing to do with GPL. MS code infects. So all that MSDN subscription did was enable Microsoft to own all your code.

Re:And all code is equally infectious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the infection isn't the license, it's the copyright.

Which all code has.

Nothing to do with GPL. MS code infects.

Infectiousness is, in part, measured by how deadly an infectious agent is. Ebola doesn't spread very well because it kills its host. Common colds are very successful at spreading. Actual MS code in your project (not just compiling with visual studio) would kill your company. GPL code is only deadly if you have a weakened immune system.

Re: Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AGP

[Anonymous Coward]

The eternal problem with case law. No-one knows what is legal and not and the law is written on the fly and not applied equally to all persons.
We need a rule that says that if three different judges interpret the law differently the law has to be rewritten.

TOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft paid handsomely for ignoring Java EULA/TOS a little while ago, and now it's Google's turn. It's not just about copyright, it's also about EULA/TOS - which Google had to trample completely to build android. Oracle has a very strong case to a) get massive cash injection from google and b) jump on the Android cash-cow for the long term, the way Microsoft did. Actually, in this case, this would be a good thing!

Oracle has a lot to lose if they win

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle haven't thought through the consequences of this.

If they win, APIs are copyrightable and their databases using all sorts of APIs/SQL etc. are owned by their respective owners. Oracle thus have a whole database business they would lose to others.

They wouldn't even own Java clones (which is what they're trying to do by asserting copyright over the definition of the API and thus claim ownership of third party Java runtimes that were written by other companies). Because Java itself is built on lots of peoples APIs, largely taken from the C++ world.

So they think they can win this big prize (control of everything written in the language of java that doesn't use their software). But actually they would lose all their business as would many others.

But also your comment is simply incorrect, Oracle are claiming the API definition is copyrighted separate from the software that implements the API, and the document describing the API. It has nothing to do with compatibility of the Java VM or the interface Google built on it.

Oracle are betting on confusing a judge thinking its the only vulture, and it cannot see all the vulture circling around Oracle HQ waiting for them to win, and open the floodgates of lawsuits against Oracle itself.

Re:Oracle has a lot to lose if they win

[Anonymous Coward]

The way you describe it, sounds almost exactly like The SCO Group's claims against Linux, because the errno.h included in the Linux headers used the same values as that of ancient UNIX.

Re:Oracle has a lot to lose if they win

[phantomfive]

If they win, APIs are copyrightable and their databases using all sorts of APIs/SQL etc. are owned by their respective owners. Oracle thus have a whole database business they would lose to others

I don't think anyone ever said, "I want to use Oracle because the APIs are so amazing." Usually it's more like, "that's a horrible cludge but at least the functionality is there." OracleDB gets use because of the implementation, not the API.

Re:Oracle has a lot to lose if they win

[vilanye]

A lot of the method definitions in the Java API are identical to many other languages.

If they somehow win this, they are going to get sued into oblivion, which would be fine since Oracle is a cancer, but the programming field would be destroyed.

The problem in the Java case

[Anonymous Coward]

The US antitrust authorities - and I don't know which specific agency would apply here - should have required Oracle to agree not to sue in cases like this, as a condition for acquiring Sun Microsystems for $8 billion seven years ago or whenever it was.

If I had to guess

[MikeRT]

At least Scalia, Thomas and Alito will hammer Oracle. They tend to be very antagonistic to arguments like this. In Kelo v. New London, which was a similar abuse of intent in the law (5th amendment there), they wrote scathing dissents. Allowing APIs to be copyrighted is like allowing technical jargon (that's not trademarked) to be copyrighted. They fall dangerously close to the list of things the Copyright Office says are not covered by law.

Part of this makes me wonder if this isn't a "heads we win, tails you lose" scenario for Oracle. If they win, they get to badly hurt Google. If they lose, there's a Supreme Court precedent that allows them to clone any small competitor's products (patent considerations notwithstanding) at a 100% API compatible level and use Oracle integration and consulting to ram them out of business. It smells like a Larry Ellison strategy.

Re:If I had to guess

[walterbyrd]

As I understand it, if Oracle loses, they might set a precedent which allow others companies to sue Oracle.

Re:If I had to guess

[mark-t]

If they lose, there's a Supreme Court precedent that allows them to clone any small competitor's products (patent considerations notwithstanding) at a 100% API compatible level and use Oracle integration and consulting to ram them out of business

Ironically, if the competitor is small, then it probably doesn't generate enough competition for Oracle to waste their time trying to be compatible with them.... if the competitor is large enough that oracle does care, then they will probably have to overcome what may already be a strong loyalty base... Google wasn't necessarily trying to initially compete with Oracle with Android, and so they didn't really face any public stigma for being thought of as a copycat In fact, about the closest thing of Oracle's that Android competed with was JavaME, which have similarities, but the design goals for these two are so vastly different that it's hard to really consider either any competition for the other. If Oracle loses this case, and as a result does decide to copy a competitor in this way in the hopes trying to push an established competitor out of business, they will really have to do it in a way that opens up entirely new or at least largely unheard of markets (where there isn't really any competition in the first place), and hope that the success in those areas bleeds over into those that they may have a more immediate interest in.

Re:If I had to guess

[Anonymous Coward]

GP doesn't necessarily mean small competitors of current Oracle offerings. The other side of the coin is for them to enter new markets this way. Basically, applying Zynga's strategy game development to business software. Not that it would be new, but possibly slightly more protected by case law.

Re:If I had to guess

[Vitriol Angst]

Scalia, Thomas and Alito agree a lot of the time.

It's the best way to know what the WRONG choice is if you aren't sure.

Either an API is copyrightable or then copyright is not copyrightable, because it's an organized and unique sequence of instructions and thoughts.

I'm not saying I like what Oracle does, or that they are the good guys -- but the problem is Copyright itself, and even bad guys get to beat good guys to death with it.

Just front end them

[VikingNation]

Simple solution to this problem. Find the person(s) who invented the concept of assignment operators, comments, and byte code and mount a major lawsuit against Sun for billions of dollars for copyright violation. Just front end them.

Re:Just front end them

[gnasher719]

Simple solution to this problem. Find the person(s) who invented the concept of assignment operators, comments, and byte code and mount a major lawsuit against Sun for billions of dollars for copyright violation. Just front end them.

Concepts don't fall under copyright law, trademark law, patent law, or any other law. So that's where your great idea fails.

Re: Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AG

[AvitarX]

Case law actually helps the law be applied uniformly, and helps one know what is legal.

Affects more than "entire nerd world"

[walterbyrd]

Article makes it sound like this is some silly squabble among nerds. Like an argument over a StarTrek episode.

I suspect a lot of non-nerd people may be surprised about the far-reaching implications of this decision.

So what will the FOSS world do

[Anonymous Coward]

once Oracle wins this?

Re: Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AG

[Anonymous Coward]

Decisions in case law need to be explicitly codified into the laws being clarified.

Why again do we let them decide it?

[Opportunist]

I know it's a bit offtopic, but ... in the recent past, I couldn't help but come to one revelation: We allow people to make important decisions who have in no way demonstrated that they know anything about the subject. More often than not, they have actually demonstrated that they have ZERO knowledge, and, what's worse, no intention to change this in any way.

Why again do we allow these people to make decisions?

I mean, if, say, scientists would make our laws, I could live with that. Scientists usually know their subjects. That's basically their work. But politicians? Most of them are lawyers, for crying out loud. What knowledge and insight do you expect from someone who was too stupid to study something useful?

Re:Why again do we let them decide it?

[ColdWetDog]

It's fucked up system. Just less fucked up than others we've figured out.

And no, 'scientists' would make lousy laws. Look how they've screwed up thermodynamics. Lord, what a mess that's created.

Re:Why again do we let them decide it?

[Opportunist]

Yeah, but their laws have one single advantage that just can't be beat: You simply CANNOT break them. And if you do, you don't get arrested, you get a Nobel Prize!

Take off the foil hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Julian Assange has all his fanboyz convinced he is hiding from the big bad (and frequently incompetent) US Federal govt, but it's NOT a US extradition that he is evading by hiding-out in an embassy - the actual extradition he is avoiding is back to Europe to face rape charges. Oh, I know there are those who wrap their heads in foil and claim that the rape charges are a deception designed to fool him into stepping out of the embassy and getting whisked-off to the US....... but give it a break already.......the whole planet KNOWS the US wants him on the document dump charges so there's no actual need to pretend the US needs the supposedly phony European rape charges. When the US govt REALLY wants somebody enough to act competently, it comes up with all sorts of quiet tactics that do not draw the attention of the entire planet before the goal is achieved. For US prosecutors, standing-down and letting Assange get prosecuted and punished for a sleazy rape case is [1] simple, [2] free, [3] fun if you think Assange is a dirtbag, [4] beneficial, as it will "out" him to many of his supporters if he really IS a dirtbag, and [5] does not interfere with going after him and prosecuting him later after the European justice system has handled the rape charges.

As is frequently the case, Occam trumps aluminum foil hats.

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If they lose, there's a Supreme Court precedent that allows them to clone any small competitor's products (patent considerations notwithstanding) at a 100% API compatible level and use Oracle integration and consulting to ram them out of business. It smells like a Larry Ellison strategy."

so.....

Having open published and freely-available APIs, and by-extension, "open source" software is BAD?

Every open source application is already subject to this very same threat, which you clearly believe stinks. In fact, by this logic, open web standards which allowed Netscape and now allow Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc would also be bad because somebody like Google or Microsoft could come along withe a compatible product then use their integration to ram competitors out of business.

APIs are concepts.

[Anonymous Coward]

they are a concept of what should be given and what the purpose of it is.

They are not and should never be copyrightable, since they are the only method to make computers work.

Copy Wrong?

[johnwerneken]

How can a language of any sort be "copyrighted"? If it can be, it ain't a language...but a recipe. Languages evolve. Users could in general agree that an Oracle o9r a Websters would be the yardstick for standards or for spelling, but those uses not wishing to don't have to. Or its not va language at all..

Swing Touch

[tepples]

The biggest thing they changed from Java was removing all the UI code (Swing and AWT). That wouldn't have been very useful on a phone

I disagree. What's the big philosophical difference between a mouse-driven interface implemented in Swing and a touch-driven interface, other than that touch targets are bigger (roughly 48px on a side in CSS terms) than mouse targets? So Google could have just extended Swing into Swing Touch by setting the default size of certain controls.

Re:Swing Touch

[phantomfive]

What's the big philosophical difference between a mouse-driven interface implemented in Swing and a touch-driven interface

I don't know, that's a deep question, I'm going to have to think about it. The most immediate difference is that you don't get to determine the size of your window (and the user can't resize it if it doesn't look good). When I think of using Swing on a phone, the idea seems cludgy to me, but maybe it wouldn't be a problem.

They're on opposite sides of 1923

[tepples]

All languages are "made up".

But only some are "recently made up". English was largely made up prior to 1923. Sindarin, tlhIngan Hol, and Dothraki were made up afterward. The 1923 date is important in the United States because it's the legal cutoff between the regime of public domain due to expiration of copyright and that of perpetual copyright on the installment plan.

Symbols for comments

[tepples]

Concepts don't fall under copyright law

Do the symbols for those concepts fall under copyright law? Does = for assignment? Does /* ... */ for comments?

Re: Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AG

[AvitarX]

That's what common law means.

I cloned IBM's APIs in the late 1960s.

[middlebass]

Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, many of IBM's mainframe APIs were public and cloned regularly. One of the first reasons was to perform Job Accounting, i.e., charge for the run of batch programs based on some combination of userid, account number, CPU time and clock time used, etc. For instance, if a Job card was processed by an API in module jobctla.exe, we would rename that IBM module to jobctlx.exe, and write our own jobctla.exe. In our module, we would simply pass on the the API calls we didn't want to process in any way and for those we did want to process, we would do our own processing and then hand the call off to the renamed module. Rewriting APIs was an easy way to do pre-processing of commands.

Re: Also, whether the GPLv2 is the same as the AG

[AK Marc]

Nope. It messes up the uniformity, as you must search all previous cases, and make an opinion as to how a future judge would rule under them.

More clear would be that any judicial disagreement with the law would wipe the law from the books, and the legislators would have to re-write it to keep a single place where one could find the law, you know, to help one know what's legal.

Loglan/Lojban split

[eric_harris_76]

I think the Loglan/Lojban split was settled out of court.

And that the conflict was so vicious because the stakes were so small.