Oracle V. Google Being Decided By Clueless Judge and Jury (vice.com)

theodp writes: The problem with Oracle v. Google," explains Motherboard's Sarah Jeong, "is that everyone actually affected by the case knows what an API is, but the whole affair is being decided by people who don't, from the normals in the jury box to the normals at the Supreme Court." Which has Google's witnesses "really, really worried that the jury does not understand nerd shit." Jeong writes, "Eric Schmidt sought to describe APIs and languages using power plugs as an analogy. Jonathan Schwartz tried his hand at explaining with 'breakfast menus,' only to have Judge William Alsup respond witheringly, 'I don't know what the witness just said. The thing about the breakfast menu makes no sense.'

"Schwartz's second attempt at the breakfast menu analogy went much better, as he explained that although two different restaurants could have hamburgers on the menu, the actual hamburgers themselves were different -- the terms on the menu were an API, and the hamburgers were implementations." And Schwarz's explanation that the acronym GNU stands for 'GNU is Not Unix' drew the following exchange: "The G part stands for GNU?" Alsup asked in disbelief. "Yes," said Schwartz on the stand. "That doesn't make any sense," said the 71-year-old Clinton appointee.

Comments

Not wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge isn't wrong, having a recursive name like GNU is weird and something only nerdy programmer types really appreciate.

This trial is a prime example of a concern I often have with the legal system in particular and the government in general: people who do not understand something are being asked to decide an issue. Government officials, whether they are judges, lawmakers or the leader of the country are usually well versed in law, but not medical research, technology, engineering, education and rarely have first hand experience with poverty, womens issues, etc. I think it's an unfortunate side effect of our system.

GNU is a recursive acronym

[TerraFrost]

GNU is a recursive acronym. The best non-tech example I can think of is VISA, which stands for Visa International Service Association. The judge probably has a VISA card himself.

Re:Oh my god

[roman_mir]

Or he could have thought about it for 10 minutes and said something like this:

API is a silhouette, a contour, an outline of an object, but it is not an object itaelf, it is a promise that the object will provide functionality that the contour is hinting about.

To copyright a contour while maybe possible should not penalize those, who want to provide their version of an object that is projecting the same contour. A contour of a woman's body is clearly recognizable but it does not say anything more than 'it is a woman'. A contour of a car promises that the object behind it is a car but the car itself with all of its parts cannot be seen.

Applications depend on such contours to request the functionality of the objects behind the contours. To allow a company to put a lock on a contour would destroy ability of applications to use each other's functionality and would significantly and negatively impact the economy.

To prevent others from projecting a promise of functionality by using an existing and well recognized description of that functionality through the means of these API object contours is to stop all development of alternative systems unless sanctioned by the current legally recognized owner of the specific object providing such functionality. But an outline of a system is not a system itself. An outline of a door is not a door yet it makes it clear that there is a door and it can be used.

Should a particular door maker be able to prevent others from making doors that people can walk through because we recognize a rectangle on a wall as a passage, as a door regardless of the company that made the door?

Do we want a single company to control all doors?