|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
That is kind of what I'm thinking, too.I am not sure that I would venture the
guess that he hasn't figured out or decided the API copyright issue yet. Maybe
just getting all of his ducks in a row first, before showing his hand
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:53 PM EDT |
The judge could have said at any time he knew how to code range check. but he
didn't until now. why not? Perhaps because if he did BSF would not have tried to
bamboozle him with that, instead they would have picked something else which the
judge had no knowledge of.
So by not saying anything he could see which side was doing the bamboozling on
this and which wasn't and use this to gauge whose word he should trust on the
issues he didn't have as good a grasp upon.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hi did, say... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:25 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
It seems to me that Alsup is working on a proof, written in Legal, to establish
that an API can't be copyrighted.
What you're seeing here is legal rigor, as opposed to mathematical rigor. The
judge had undergraduate training in the latter and a resume to suggest he knows
a thing or two about the former.
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
He said before he can rule on the "big API issue" that he has a lot of
reading to do.
Even if he already knows the jist of things, he probably has to read through
every precedent very carefully, and make sure he doesn't make any mistakes or
leave any holes unplugged in his ruling.
He also might still be genuinely uncertain about how he should rule, but based
on the acumen he's shown throughout this trial so far, I am confident that he
will end up ruling in a sensible way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
There are two types of judges in the world, the first reads the law to make his
rulings, the second figures out what he wants to rule and uses the law to
justify it. (I prefer the second type of judge, especially when it comes to IP
law as it gives him room to make both parties whole).
Copyrighted API's are a weird beast, I can almost believe Oracle's argument that
the structure and naming are covered by copyright except for the part that
requires that the thing being copyrighted is somehow a creative expression.
Naming a parking lot section b-12 or x-14 is not really that creative, it is
just assigning a unique name so you can find your car. Oracle is suing because
someone else has started naming section of their parking garage using a letter
and number.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:35 AM EDT |
I know he'll be researching all sorts of case law, as well as taking into
account other judicial findings, such as the recent european ruling, as well as
briefs from Oracle and Google (though the absence of AC briefs on the issue is
highly curious).
My question is, will he also be taking into account industry practice?
Historically, software interfaces, be they sockets, or protocols, or APIs, have
never been treated as protectable elements in the entire history of the
industry. (well maybe there have been a few exceedingly rare instances, but
their rarity exemplifies the prevailing industry attitude that claiming
protections on interfaces is, at best, counterproductive)
bkd[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:45 AM EDT |
I assumed he was a coder as soon as he started talking about
QBASIC seemingly unprompted.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
We also have to remember that Judge Alsup has to separate his feelings as a
programmer from his obligation to confirm legal status of the issue.
The question is not whether he feels that APIs SHOULD be copyright protected,
but whether under the current wording of law, they ARE copyright protected.
It's not his job to create or modify the law, it is his job to enforce it as
congress wrote it.
I'm not even slightly surprised it is taking this long for him to determine that
- he is on a starting point for a VERY long road to the Supreme Court on what
will be an industry shaping issue. If I were him, I would want to make sure I
take every precedent and reading of any law throughout civilized society to make
sure I did it right.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
