Authored by: Kilz on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT |
That analogy would only work if the chapter titles were all unprotectable names. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 03:24 AM EDT |
I'd say it's more like the publisher published that series and Google went
and made notes on what chapters were in each book, what their titles were and
what was covered in them. They then went and wrote their own original books,
with each one having the same chapter titles and covering the same material so
that Google's series could be used in place of the publisher's series without
needing any changes in lesson plans.
Of course, the publisher is angry
about this because now teachers don't have to buy their expensive series.
So they try to use the duplication of chapter titles to shut down that
competition, because they can't make any better case than that but they don't
want to have to accept competition.
Which leads us to where Oracle is
today. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tom_markus on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 05:09 AM EDT |
Pushing my own analogy...
Prof. O's publishes a book on electromagnetism. It is well received and
taken up in many universities. However there are no problem sets.
Prof. H writes a problem set that everyone agrees is even better than the
original book- Prof. O's is delighted- it took over the structure of his
original work, chapter by chapter. He recommends it to everybody.
Prof. G comes along- he finds many of the proofs in the original book a
little wordy; you could really do a little better with a little bit of effort...
However, he loves the problem book by Prof. H! His solution is to take
the problem sets (based on the original structure) and writes a new text
book. Prof. O'S is horrified; his sales drop.
What should Prof. O's do? Does he have a legal recourse? Against whom
H or G?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 05:44 AM EDT |
I think the book analogy is flawed.
The 37 volumes provide the sum total of scientific knowledge, with each volume
dedicated to covering a specific branch of the sciences. The contents of the
book, including the table of contents, are specific to the subject as provided
by
the author or authors.
Each volume ends up in a different place in the library as defined by the
subject
and the dewey decimal system. There's a master index, the card catalog (for
those of us that remember), where we can look up key information and find the
number the volume we want is assigned, allowing us to go to the right section
of the library, find the shelf, and eventually the book we need.
Now this is the key point: Google copied the division of subject matter so their
implementation of the set sits in the same place on the library shelves, in the
same number space of the dewey decimal system, making it possible to be used
independent of the other work. The implementation inside each volume is
unique. Both volumes might cover Insects, but Googles might start with spiders
while Oracle's might start with beetles. To get to specific subject matter
(source
code of a particular method), you'd have to consult the index and turn to the
appropriate page, which would likely be different.
[Where my interpretation of this analogy further breaks down is that I believe
the dewey decimal system is also copyrighted and I believe there have been a
few lawsuits brought to enforce those rights. Not that that's wrong in itself, I
just find it strange that the dewey decimal system is copyrighted.]
GSY[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 07:36 AM EDT |
I have always thought of the java API as a phone book.
So the method names and signature are the same as the facts in the phone book,
the name and phone number.
So there is
int java.nio.Buffer.limit(int iSetLimit)
The weirest thing to my mind is that the API for the java APIs is not (? I am
100% sure of this!) separate from the implementation. There is no include file
like there is in C++ with the declarations; the compiler can use the byte code
implmentation to perform the linking; though this is not necessary, it could
take the usage and assume it is correct, and let the JVM baulk when trying to
load your program.
Going back to PJs airplane analogy, if you wanted to write a program for the
plane, you would actually need an instance of the plane in your living room so
the compiler can create your program. Though it would work with all planes that
have the same cockpit layout.
Jane (not logged in)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
I would not presume that the TOC is the most critical part of the book. I
would think that tthe TOC shows the logical presentation of the subject of the
book and the writing samples demonstrates the authors abilities and assumed
style of the book.
I think the biggest issue with the API's is that anyone cloning java must use
the exact names and arguments for the methods within the API's. The cloner can
either choose to implement an API or not, but if the API is necessary, it must
use exactly the same name (and use the same number and types of arguments).
Back to the TOC analogy, someone writing a similar book may choose to cover some
or all of the same material, but this author has no compelling reasons to
organize the book or even to name the chapters the same. API's are different,
they are useless unless they have the exact name.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
Is Oracle now attempting to create a monopoly via license that the copyright
would not in itself grant?
In Sun V. Mircorsoft if I recall correctly, the fight was about MS using it's
usual embrace, extend, extinguish
stratagy with Java by creating an incompatable VM and calling it
"Java".
In this case, Oracle seems to be doing the exact opposite attacking a product
that does not even pretend to be
Java and yet is written using the Java language, that is attacking any VM that
is not called JavaVM.
Let me try it this way. If I wrote a book and sold the rights to a publisher,
the publisher then licensed out
the book for printing to a third party in a different language. What is the
scope of the rights?
Can the publisher then specify via license that only their in-house interpreter
can be used to create the book
in the said language? Or rather that the language used in the work can not be
used to assist some outside source to train a competing interpreter?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|