|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
Conflate language with API's and libs and lose any
right to indignation over your opponent's cribbed
fuzziness later on.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
No, Google's right. Remember, copyright under the IP-Fascist regime (currently
codifed as the Berne Convention) isn't a matter of registration and marking. In
other words, you can't produce an API and expect people to be allowed to copy
the specifications (in order to USE the API, which is its only conceivable
purpose.)
Under IPFR, creating anything copyrightable automatically creates rights which
remain even if you do not assert them, even if you declare your intention not to
assert them. And a perfectly honest API generator (as Sun used to be) can become
a conveyor of submarine copyright attacks on its users, just by being bought out
(involuntarily) by corporate raiders.
Without the protection Google is defending, nobody could ever use anyone else's
API, for any reason, without risking future lawsuits. It just wouldn't be worth
it. Interoperability of any kind would disappear.
For all industries which depend on the USE of software, the sky would fall.
Fortunately, sanity prevailed, and interoperability is not going to be an
automatic criminal act.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
Look what they were making the statement about...
Garbage In Garbage out
In a lawsuit as baseless and unethical as the one we've seen, there is no good
reply.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
Judge Alsup ruled:
Oracle must resort, therefore, to claiming that
it owns, by copyright, the exclusive right to any and all possible
implementations of the taxonomy-like command structure for the 166 packages
and/or any subpart thereof — even though it
copyrighted only one implementation.
To accept Oracle’s claim would be to allow anyone to copyright one version of
code to carry out a system of commands and thereby bar all others from writing
their own different versions to carry out all or part of the same commands. No
holding has ever endorsed such a sweeping proposition.
I think
Google's PR statement is a reasonable interpretation of what the judge decided.
A ruling can uphold a principle without specifically stating it does so. For
example, I could easily imagine a civil rights ruling that upholds the principle
"all men are created equal" even though the ruling itself does not contain or
allude to that phrase.
With all the lies and nonsense being spewed about this
case, you seem to be straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
---
Our
job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
