Which MIGHT be true, except Sun said they were open source and free to use.
They are open source and free to use, but you still have to follow the license. Google didn't follow the license (which is why they recently switched to the GPL for their Android dev system; if they had done that long ago, there wouldn't be any problem now).
Yeah, "TO A HUMAN" is really what matters in copyright......
Your points about the java.* name being necessary for a computer to be able to run a piece of source code is true, of course, but that's more relevant in an interoperability fair-use defense.
Attempting to have exclusive rights to an API is like a restaurant wanting exclusive rights to phrases such as "GET WATER", or "ONE BEER PLEASE"
The courts deal with this problem by using the "abstraction-filtration-comparison" test. Essentially, they remove all the parts that are common and unexpressive, such as "get water" or "one beer please," and then they make a comparison with whatever is left. In this case, math.abs() is probably not original, but clearly the package name "java.math.*" is not necessary for expressing the idea of absolute value.
There's a lot of good information in the appeal court's decision, and also Wikipedia has a decent article on the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.
That's definitely not true, it's even less true of header files than of APIs in general, because header files can have real, important code. The example that was raised on the LKML at the time of the SCO trials were things like htonl() ntohl() etc, because they are implemented as macros in the Linux source code, and they are really efficiently implemented. Obviously in C and C++ a lot of real source code can be implemented in header files.
You're blowing ignorance out your fingers now. You hate Oracle, you misunderstand this case (because of your ignorance), and your emotion/fear is making you say stupid things. For example:
They didn't need a license because they didn't copy anything from Java
They didn't copy anything from Java? Really?
Yes they did [make a clean room copy], and it's not a copy.
No, you're wrong, Joshua Bloch wrote code in both Android and in Sun's version of Java. If you have the same person writing code in both places, that's the sloppiest "clean room" implementation ever.
Oracle's idea that because Android isn't 100% compatible with Java, and they didn't copy *all* the APIs, so therefore it can't be about interoperability is absolutely laughable.
Wait, you just said it's not a copy. So did they copy or not?
Nope, because every company is now going to have to go to court to prove 'fair use'', which Oracle has made various versions of as it has gone along.
Every company is not going to have to go to court to prove fair use, you're letting your emotions carry you away again. And it doesn't matter what 'version' Oracle 'makes,' it matters how the courts rule. The lawyers are supposed to present several arguments to support their case, that's what lawyers do.
Yes it has. Software implementations, yes, APIs no. Not sure if you're just ignorant or are deliberately painting over that.
In what case have APIs ever been treated as non-copyrightable?
Again, calm down, don't let your emotions carry you away, you will think more clearly.
If you reuse APIs to help developers with a familiar language and for them to reuse their code....that qualifies as fair use without even thinking about it.
This has also been....overturned endlessly, throughout the 80s and 90s with things like DR DOS.
No it hasn't, throughout the decades copyright of software has been upheld. The Dr DOS lawsuit was based on Microsoft purposely breaking it.
There is no software industry of any kind with copyrighted APIs.
Nah, because there is a strong interoperability defense, that allows you to copy copyrighted APIs (which is what your friend dr dos did).
Google is having trouble for a few reasons:
1) They didn't make a clean-room copy.
2) They didn't make their copy for interoperability reasons.
3) They didn't use any of the licenses that were available for Java. Google has now switched to the GPL for their Java, so there is no more problem for them going forward.
this will be a huge problem for projects like Wine (which implements Microsoft APIs), and GNU/Linux (which implements Bell labs APIs).
No, Wine has a solid fair-use defense, because they exist only for the purpose of interoperability.
Google is struggling to make an interoperability defense because that was not the purpose of their copying.
Frankly, I'm fine with Christians or Muslims trying to take over the world.
I'm not fine with either one of them taking it by force. If your words can't convince me, then let me be. Think of better words.
. Now the real question is if physical possession of the device is a requirement for installing the keylogger, (in which case not a very high level risk), or if it can be loaded through via malicious website, (much higher level of risk). Unfortunately the article doesn't go into enough detail
I don't know how he did it, but if you have ADB access, you can install a key-logger (I used to do that for my job). Another option is rooting a phone, install the key-logger, then unroot it.
John McAfee is mildly insane, but he gives me more entertainment per word uttered than most of the other people you see in the media. So keep going John, I'm waiting to see what weird thing you pull next.
Cybersecurity Ventures has an article claiming it McAfee actually did it. So he managed to trick at least some of the reporters he talked to. Worth mentioning this is similar to the bitcoin/Craig Wright media trick.
Not to mention the definition of GNU is completely irrelevant to the case at hand, so even a perfect judge would have tried to move on from that point.
Hysteria aside, there's a lot of fun stuff in the article. The lawyers were brutal:
No one bothered to challenge Schwartz’s apparent belief that hamburgers are commonly featured on breakfast menus, as he had already moved on to confusing the jury on another front
“You don't remember this article about being one of the fifteen worst CEOs in American history?” [Oracle's lawyer] asked him.
Schwartz congratulates Google on developing an open source mobile platform to its face, and then calls it “Scroogle” in a private email
btw, this case isn't the end of the world, it won't affect your ability to use APIs, only to copy them wholesale. And even then you can have a defense if you do it for interoperability purposes, so in 90% of the cases where you'd want to copy an API, you'll be able to.
In the other cases, make up your own stupid language, it's not like Java is that great.
I use these little metal clippers that'll work just fine after the fall of civilization.
That works fine until they rust or get dull and you can't use them anymore, or you didn't pack them with you when you were fleeing from the rabid monkeys of diaspora. Let's be honest, there are plenty of reasons you wouldn't have toenail clippers with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Which MIGHT be true, except Sun said they were open source and free to use.
They are open source and free to use, but you still have to follow the license. Google didn't follow the license (which is why they recently switched to the GPL for their Android dev system; if they had done that long ago, there wouldn't be any problem now).
Yeah, "TO A HUMAN" is really what matters in copyright......
Your points about the java.* name being necessary for a computer to be able to run a piece of source code is true, of course, but that's more relevant in an interoperability fair-use defense.
That's true, Google has plenty of potential defenses.
Attempting to have exclusive rights to an API is like a restaurant wanting exclusive rights to phrases such as "GET WATER", or "ONE BEER PLEASE"
The courts deal with this problem by using the "abstraction-filtration-comparison" test. Essentially, they remove all the parts that are common and unexpressive, such as "get water" or "one beer please," and then they make a comparison with whatever is left. In this case, math.abs() is probably not original, but clearly the package name "java.math.*" is not necessary for expressing the idea of absolute value.
There's a lot of good information in the appeal court's decision, and also Wikipedia has a decent article on the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.
Headers are not copyright able.
That's definitely not true, it's even less true of header files than of APIs in general, because header files can have real, important code. The example that was raised on the LKML at the time of the SCO trials were things like htonl() ntohl() etc, because they are implemented as macros in the Linux source code, and they are really efficiently implemented. Obviously in C and C++ a lot of real source code can be implemented in header files.
They didn't need a license because they didn't copy anything from Java
They didn't copy anything from Java? Really?
Yes they did [make a clean room copy], and it's not a copy.
No, you're wrong, Joshua Bloch wrote code in both Android and in Sun's version of Java. If you have the same person writing code in both places, that's the sloppiest "clean room" implementation ever.
Oracle's idea that because Android isn't 100% compatible with Java, and they didn't copy *all* the APIs, so therefore it can't be about interoperability is absolutely laughable.
Wait, you just said it's not a copy. So did they copy or not?
Nope, because every company is now going to have to go to court to prove 'fair use'', which Oracle has made various versions of as it has gone along.
Every company is not going to have to go to court to prove fair use, you're letting your emotions carry you away again. And it doesn't matter what 'version' Oracle 'makes,' it matters how the courts rule. The lawyers are supposed to present several arguments to support their case, that's what lawyers do.
Yes it has. Software implementations, yes, APIs no. Not sure if you're just ignorant or are deliberately painting over that.
In what case have APIs ever been treated as non-copyrightable?
Again, calm down, don't let your emotions carry you away, you will think more clearly.
If you reuse APIs to help developers with a familiar language and for them to reuse their code....that qualifies as fair use without even thinking about it.
Why. I would be interested in your reasoning.
This has also been....overturned endlessly, throughout the 80s and 90s with things like DR DOS.
No it hasn't, throughout the decades copyright of software has been upheld. The Dr DOS lawsuit was based on Microsoft purposely breaking it.
There is no software industry of any kind with copyrighted APIs.
Nah, because there is a strong interoperability defense, that allows you to copy copyrighted APIs (which is what your friend dr dos did).
Google is having trouble for a few reasons:
1) They didn't make a clean-room copy.
2) They didn't make their copy for interoperability reasons.
3) They didn't use any of the licenses that were available for Java. Google has now switched to the GPL for their Java, so there is no more problem for them going forward.
If APIs are copyrightable
APIs are copyrightable, at least in California.
this will be a huge problem for projects like Wine (which implements Microsoft APIs), and GNU/Linux (which implements Bell labs APIs).
No, Wine has a solid fair-use defense, because they exist only for the purpose of interoperability.
Google is struggling to make an interoperability defense because that was not the purpose of their copying.
You're getting confused with trademark, which needs to be maintained; whereas copyright and patents do not.
Frankly, I'm fine with Christians or Muslims trying to take over the world.
I'm not fine with either one of them taking it by force. If your words can't convince me, then let me be. Think of better words.
Your comment title is "LOL", thereby clearly identifying you as a troll. Somehow people thought you were serious.....
. Now the real question is if physical possession of the device is a requirement for installing the keylogger, (in which case not a very high level risk), or if it can be loaded through via malicious website, (much higher level of risk). Unfortunately the article doesn't go into enough detail
I don't know how he did it, but if you have ADB access, you can install a key-logger (I used to do that for my job). Another option is rooting a phone, install the key-logger, then unroot it.
John McAfee is mildly insane, but he gives me more entertainment per word uttered than most of the other people you see in the media. So keep going John, I'm waiting to see what weird thing you pull next.
Cybersecurity Ventures has an article claiming it McAfee actually did it. So he managed to trick at least some of the reporters he talked to. Worth mentioning this is similar to the bitcoin/Craig Wright media trick.
Here is a screenshot in case they realize their mistake and remove it later.
All I'm saying is I'm never getting in a car on Feb 29th, and never during the daylight-savings shift.
Not to mention the definition of GNU is completely irrelevant to the case at hand, so even a perfect judge would have tried to move on from that point.
No one bothered to challenge Schwartz’s apparent belief that hamburgers are commonly featured on breakfast menus, as he had already moved on to confusing the jury on another front
“You don't remember this article about being one of the fifteen worst CEOs in American history?” [Oracle's lawyer] asked him.
Schwartz congratulates Google on developing an open source mobile platform to its face, and then calls it “Scroogle” in a private email
btw, this case isn't the end of the world, it won't affect your ability to use APIs, only to copy them wholesale. And even then you can have a defense if you do it for interoperability purposes, so in 90% of the cases where you'd want to copy an API, you'll be able to.
In the other cases, make up your own stupid language, it's not like Java is that great.
Steering little pouches around with external magnets while irradiating some poor kid with X-rays (so you can steer the 'robot')
I'm guessing they would use ultrasound.
I'm not flexible enough to clip my toenails with my teeth
I use wire cutters. Better than nail clippers.
Hmmm, that might actually work better than nail clippers.
That's not a very sophisticated argument. You probably didn't even read my link.
This guy makes a very good argument why that won't happen by 2020.
It's not a secret anymore.
I use these little metal clippers that'll work just fine after the fall of civilization.
That works fine until they rust or get dull and you can't use them anymore, or you didn't pack them with you when you were fleeing from the rabid monkeys of diaspora. Let's be honest, there are plenty of reasons you wouldn't have toenail clippers with you.