| Many of the arguments deck2 was referring to are totally
bogus and either plain
stupid or wildly uninformed. I responded to two of them. The first claimed the
brief did not talk about the law even though it cites five federal cases and and
repeatedly refers to U.S.C § 102(b).
The second one I responded to was based
on the ridiculous misconception that white room reverse engineering is something
distinct from re-implementing an API without access
to the source code of the
original implementation. The
term "white room" was actually used by both Google
and Oracle in their arguments over Google's use of the API.
The beginning
of the "misleading...." post confuses the copyright of the BSD socket
implementation with the copyright of the BSD socket API. It seems
to
use this internal confusion to say the brief is misleading.
But later the
post contradicts itself saying "The BSD Socket source code is not an
API". The author of that
post and the one immediately before it disparages
the brief
with confused and wildly uninformed arguments. They seem to
have some
fixed and incorrect notions in their head of the meaning of certain terms and
then flails wildly at the brief because the rest of the world does not use the
author's private definitions.
Here is a clue: if you are not
intimately familiar with this case and the technology and the law it is dealing
with then don't immediately assume that the people who are
intimately familiar
with it are wrong simple because
what they say disagrees with you own internal
definitions
and beliefs.
---
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 | # ]
| 
