|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
If you do it, I'll surely put one up.
I have to say, though, the judge's questions
are depressing to me. The issue of whether
or not APIs are copyrightable shouldn't
be this hard to answer, I wouldn't think.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hmmm. - Authored by: jesse on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
A basic premise of common law is that any randomly selected jury can hear and
decide any question of fact, no matter how complicated or arcane.
Of course, this is the same body of common law that presumes that any lawyer can
completely comprehend and communicate to a jury, any technology, no matter how
complicated or arcane.
The only thing bigger than the collective ego of the legal profession is their
fees.
In great humility
I am not a lawyer
JG
PS And the jury has to do this complete comprehension from a once only verbal
presentation, with no chance to re-read or parse multiple explications of any
background material (because that would introduce information not under the
control of the lawyers, and would take TOO MUCH TIME).
Welcome to the best jurisprudence in the universe.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
I"d say not necessary. Java (a language and a library) is one of a very few
widely used languages that has a strong affiliation with a commercial owner.
The only legitimate claim that Oracle has is that some part of the top-level
library descriptions and names, which was put in tangible form via the
specification and API documentation, got copied as Google built another
language, and that this copying was done for Google's commercial gain. Not an
every day occurrence. Not any thing like what you or I do as we look up the
type
of the
output stream a URL object provides in the course of writing a
program.
Others made their java-like language using different names,
structures and
organizations for their
packages, or rather assemblies. This
would be Microsoft and C#. Other
languages are specified via open standards, or
documented in textbooks, or
created by
public sector entities. Many languages
have sparse libraries, and provide only
a foreign interface mechanism so that
other libraries may be accessed.
Commercial
entities which make their living
by selling a language implementation designate
the value in the libraries and
implementation efficiency which are
external to the spec. Some make their
living by providing consulting expertise,
using the experience in writing a
library as the key value a client may need as
the vendor knows how best their
library may be used and where it needs
extension for
new problems. Sun
created and promoted java as a strategic product.
Sun gave away a lot of the
language. Sun gave away more as it tried to regain
their 90s success in the
face of Microsoft's competition, Intel's x86 disruption,
Linux's os disruption
and the loss of many customers when the dot-com bubble
burst in '00. The idea
is you give away what the other person sells, but reserve
the things that you
have uniquely. Last decade Sun had to find a market where
there were paying
customers. Java in mobile looked like an opportunity. Google
would have
expected, and indeed anticipated,
that Sun would not be happy if something
java-like was given away to the
mobile space. I think what I'm saying is
that
the details of Object, primitives, packages, semi-colons, variable scope,
public
final static variables, etc., etc., would not serve any useful purpose.
There is
nothing magic in the java language. Lindholm notwithstanding, because
he was
speaking within a context, lots of people dismiss java as slow and
verbose. Who
else would want to make something java-like in this manner? Did
the affinity for
java code really make a material difference for Android's
acceptance? The
syntax and commonality of a few packages probably only shaved a
day or two
off of the time an experienced programmer would need to learn the
Android
apis. Only one phone maker, these days, is making serious money using
Android. A couple of years ago, there were three or four. No other mobile
platform, but one, with or without java support has made serious inroads in the
mobile space. Brilliant Sun engineers ended up at Google as Sun's outlook
faded. It was a unique arrangement of the stars. Android took off
because it
was the only os that promised phone manufacturers a quick
response to the
iPhone, and it was free as in beer. (Google was giving away
what Microsoft was
selling.) Looking at systems programming, Google
is writing
its own
language, called Go. It is not java-like. If Oracle
wanted to push around
us java programmers, the jvm is are far more vulnerable
point than the use of
the apis. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
We, or the court, don't need Yet Another Java Primer, besides
Oracle/Sun
already claim the rights and will say we are wrong.
What the court
needs is an Object Oriented Programming basics,
two pages max, written in
plain English, no programmer jargon.
It should be compulsory reading for
judge, jury, and attorneys.
"greed" has an excellent start on one above
A
Cheap OO Primer
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
