On appeal, Oracle insists Google's Android copied key Java code

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muted (0)
Sort by date Sort by votes
D

Discoceris

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,185
Subscriptor
  • #5
    The problem with the analogy, however, is that a story CAN be written in any way possible (it's art). Code, however, especially efficient code, can really only be written in a way that the system can understand (it's functional) and really do limits how far a developer can deviate from that.
     
    Upvote
    58 (61 / -3)
    Post content hidden for low score. Show…
    Post content hidden for low score. Show…
    D

    dm00

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    724
  • #13
    DNick":1n0sfnd8 said:
    I'm not interested in any of the parties to this and don't care how it turns out (except in any way that's likely to create a precedent or be applied more widely). However, it's difficult for me to see how using someone else's code can be "fair use." We didn't copy the whole Office suite, we only grabbed out PowerPoint, so fair use?
    Click to expand...

    A better analogy is:

    We thought PowerPoint was bloated, so we hired 2 guys from the PowerPoint team, and added in 10 of our own engineers, and they wrote a presentation software we call ShowPoint. Some of the code ended up being exactly the same.
     
    Upvote
    -17 (10 / -27)
    R

    rockforbrains

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    1,076
  • #16
    If calls to the Java API are consider copyright infringement does this mean that most Java code infringes? If so, then what is the point behind using Java if you can be sued for copyright infringement.

    I think Oracle's incompetent management and legal team should try think what the implications of their new position is. Essentially they are telling non-Oracle developers may be you should port your code to some other language so the mismanagement team at Oracle can not sue. Would using Scala avoid this problem?
     
    Upvote
    10 (14 / -4)
    A

    AreWeThereYeti

    Ars Praefectus
    4,511
    Subscriptor
  • #17
    Here's a little parable: A very old and evil troll named Debacle once lived in a database on a road in a remote forest. He grew rich off of the money he extorted from passing travelers. One day he captured a traveler who told him that if he didn't rob him and instead paid him, he would tell him where the deed was hidden for a major bridge over a valley. He told the troll he could grow even richer once he owned the bridge, because he could extort money from the much larger number of travelers who flooded daily into the city on the other side.

    The troll took him up on the deal, and rubbed his hands together in glee at the thought of all those defenseless commuters to fleece. But it turned out that the deed was only the deed to a small coffee shop at the entrance to the bridge. So he had no option but to go into the coffee business. But his horrifying body odor and foul manners drove off all his customers.

    So now the troll is back in his database in the forest, and his frustrated roaring can be heard in the distance now that the cheers of the relieved citizens have died.

    The end. Please.

    edit: for consonance of tense, and for pleasure.
     
    Upvote
    96 (98 / -2)
    I

    iridepolarbears

    Seniorius Lurkius
    7
  • #18
    DNick":3nysw76e said:
    I'm not interested in any of the parties to this and don't care how it turns out (except in any way that's likely to create a precedent or be applied more widely). However, it's difficult for me to see how using someone else's code can be "fair use." We didn't copy the whole Office suite, we only grabbed out PowerPoint, so fair use?
    Click to expand...

    more like, we wrote a competing paper on the same topic as you, and some of our chapter tiles are the same, and the content is similar, due to us trying to achieve the same result(ie. a paper on something). eg, sprocket design and gear ratio information in a chapter called How To Make Sprockets.
     
    Upvote
    24 (25 / -1)
    S

    superchkn

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    743
    Subscriptor++
  • #19
    dm00":xt5iadsc said:
    DNick":xt5iadsc said:
    I'm not interested in any of the parties to this and don't care how it turns out (except in any way that's likely to create a precedent or be applied more widely). However, it's difficult for me to see how using someone else's code can be "fair use." We didn't copy the whole Office suite, we only grabbed out PowerPoint, so fair use?
    Click to expand...

    A better analogy is:

    We thought PowerPoint was bloated, so we hired 2 guys from the PowerPoint team, and added in 10 of our own engineers, and they wrote a presentation software we call ShowPoint. Some of the code ended up being exactly the same.
    Click to expand...
    Really, that's not even technical enough and it might be better to get away from software for an analogy. Instead think of a simple thing like a keyboard. QWERTY is the interface, but people can copy that key arrangement all they want. That's a bit different still, as the QWERTY layout was patented, but on a functional level all that was copied was that simple interface. The keyboards are completely different except on that interface level.
     
    Upvote
    -2 (3 / -5)
    G

    Gawain Lavers

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    644
  • #20
    Discoceris":zpytjg56 said:
    The problem with the analogy, however, is that a story CAN be written in any way possible (it's art). Code, however, especially efficient code, can really only be written in a way that the system can understand (it's functional) and really do limits how far a developer can deviate from that.
    Click to expand...

    The problem with the analogy is "50 Shades of Grey".
     
    Upvote
    4 (6 / -2)
    B

    blither

    Ars Centurion
    386
  • #21
    rockforbrains":o70rzwde said:
    If calls to the Java API are consider copyright infringement does this mean that most Java code infringes? If so, then what is the point behind using Java if you can be sued for copyright infringement.

    I think Oracle's incompetent management and legal team should try think what the implications of their new position is. Essentially they are telling non-Oracle developers may be you should port your code to some other language so the mismanagement teams at Oracle cant not sue. Would using Scala avoid this problem?
    Click to expand...

    No, they are just saying the class and function definitions are copyrightable.

    If you call a function that is not the definition as it was defined elsewhere you are just using a reference to that definition in your code.

    Their argument seems fairly logical however, this being a case about computer code and not a work of fiction should make the outcome different than what they described because the two scenarios are not entirely analogous. While their description seems appropriate they already allow others to implement java if they so choose whereas I do not believe a writer would ever allow for someone to copy chapter names and recreate the story and it then becomes a different story. An interesting counter would be Star Wars and Spaceballs, even though they did not take chapters (classes) and beginning paragraphs (functions) and rewrite them they still created a similar work based on the other work. I think the major flaw to my argument is that we are talking about a parody and the chapters and beginning paragraphs would not line up, but to me it seems comparable :-D
     
    Upvote
    7 (8 / -1)
    I

    idget

    Ars Praetorian
    414
  • #22
    Discoceris":fmwypamp said:
    The problem with the analogy, however, is that a story CAN be written in any way possible (it's art). Code, however, especially efficient code, can really only be written in a way that the system can understand (it's functional) and really do limits how far a developer can deviate from that.
    Click to expand...

    While we seem to agree that more efficient code generally restricts the programmer and sets a more rigid structure, the idea that you could ever write a single line of code as efficiently as possible without any other possibilities is just flawed.

    Even at the assembly level there are plenty of different ways to write a basic jump table. The lower the language, the more important the sum of all the parts become in determining plagiarism, instead of just the individual part.

    Code, no matter how functional you think it is, is very much art in its own right.
     
    Upvote
    -9 (6 / -15)
    R

    redfox2807

    Smack-Fu Master, in training
    99
  • #23
    I'm not a lawyer so I can't see why the Ann Droid case infringes anything since it's a separate text. It just based on a Harry Potter book scenario, why is that illegal? Can someone explain that to me?

    Seeing how Oracle is steadily changing into a patent troll I wish Sun had found a better buyer for itself.
     
    Upvote
    6 (7 / -1)
    K

    kirrace

    Seniorius Lurkius
    2
  • #28
    and Google, in their defense will state that:

    "I'm sorry Oracle, but Ann Droyd didn't do that, because copying an unreleased copy of someone else's book would indeed be wrong. Instead, she sat down with the classic children's book 'Goodnight Moon', reviewed it, analyzed it, and as she is within her rights to do, came up with the excellent parody 'Goodnight iPad'."

    See http://www.davidmilgrim.com/DMDC/Goodnight_iPad_Press.html for details.
     
    Upvote
    18 (19 / -1)
    U

    UltimateLemon

    Ars Praefectus
    5,966
  • #29
    redfox2807":35c4dosp said:
    I'm not a lawyer so I can't see why the Ann Droid case infringes anything since it's a separate text. It just based on a Harry Potter book scenario, why is that illegal? Can someone explain that to me?

    Seeing how Oracle is steadily changing into a patent troll I wish Sun had found a better buyer for itself.
    Click to expand...

    It sounds like they are trying to confuse the issue by making weird analogies.

    They are describing a case using books where title and topic sentence is a copy while rest is paraphrase; which is dicy / copyright infringement.

    But the case they lost is that API method name and function of the method is same/similar but actual code wasn't.

    In effect, they are trying to argue method name == book/chapter title and same function == paraphrasing.
     
    Upvote
    4 (6 / -2)
    R

    redfox2807

    Smack-Fu Master, in training
    99
  • #30
    dm00":a11475mm said:
    A better analogy is:

    We thought PowerPoint was bloated, so we hired 2 guys from the PowerPoint team, and added in 10 of our own engineers, and they wrote a presentation software we call ShowPoint. Some of the code ended up being exactly the same.
    Click to expand...
    This is plain wrong. The jury's verdict was that no code was the same. It's more like suing LibreOffice for "violating copyright" on MS Office's functionality or for having pretty similar GUI - panels, menus, etc.
     
    Upvote
    15 (16 / -1)
    A

    AM16

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,551
  • #31
    So my question is, how would oracle implement java without infringing their patents? If they do not provide guidance on how to do this, then java is not free to be implemented at all.


    Why would anyone want to use java if this is the case?

    They are digging themselves a grave no matter which the case is. These people are what an imbecile and cretin father and mother's kid would be.
     
    Upvote
    4 (6 / -2)
    Post content hidden for low score. Show…
    A

    AreWeThereYeti

    Ars Praefectus
    4,511
    Subscriptor
  • #34
    strongbad":1lq92b9n said:
    I believe that Judge Alsup did an extremely poor job with jury instructions in this case that led to the finding of fair use. He set a very low bar in the instructions that any "transformative" change counted as fair use. By that standard almost anything is fair use and, unsurprisingly, the jury ruled that way.

    It's pretty obvious that Google did a lot of copying here and it is also pretty clear that Oracle/Sun, who has spent a lot of money developing Java, did not want them to do so. It may well end up being declared fair use but it's hard to knock Oracle for taking Google to court on something they so strongly disagree about.
    Click to expand...

    You're missing the point that the copying they did was of interfaces, for compatibility reasons, which is both legal and desirable. Programming languages specifications and interfaces are specifically not patentable, because they are too important as the medium in which programmers express their ideas.

    Oh, and by the way, Oracle didn't spend any money developing Java. They bought it from Sun, who specifically DIDN'T sue Google. Sun would have liked money from Google, but they knew that what Google was doing was legal, so they even said that they were glad Google was using Java because it increased the size of the overall Java market.

    It's easy to knock Oracle. All you have to do is lift up any rock in their vicinity, and you'll find something loathsome.
     
    Upvote
    29 (31 / -2)
    Zacpod

    Zacpod

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,811
    Subscriptor
  • #35
    strongbad":13w8on1u said:
    ...it is also pretty clear that Oracle/Sun, who has spent a lot of money developing Java, did not want them to do so. It may well end up being declared fair use but it's hard to knock Oracle for taking Google to court on something they so strongly disagree about.
    Click to expand...

    Actually, Sun had no problem at all. They were happy to see Java hitting a new platform, and Google/Sun had an understanding that everything was fine. It wasn't till Oracle got their greedy hands on Sun that it became a problem because Oracle is trying to monetize everything they possibly can.

    (as an aside, their stance on this has caused me to migrate the various web servers I run from MySQL over to MariaDB, in an attempt to avoid anything Oracle has touched like it has the black plague. If I didn't use ADSM [Cisco firewall mgmt software] for work so much I'd deinstall Java too, but sadly that's not an option right now. :s)
     
    Upvote
    9 (12 / -3)
    Z

    zogus

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    7,247
    Subscriptor
  • #37
    strongbad":gd8wrjx8 said:
    It's pretty obvious that Google did a lot of copying here
    Click to expand...

    Proof by assertion? But a lot of commenters here disagree with you, which shows that at least it isn't "pretty obvious."

    and it is also pretty clear that Oracle/Sun, who has spent a lot of money developing Java, did not want them to do so.
    Click to expand...

    Well, yeah, I will grant you that Oracle is clearly unhappy, but Sun never objected when Android first got started.

    It may well end up being declared fair use but it's hard to knock Oracle for taking Google to court on something they so strongly disagree about.
    Click to expand...

    On the contrary, Oracle deserves to be knocked a few miles into the ground if, as you appear to assert, it's suing people just because it's so upset, rather than having a legally justifiable complaint.

    Edit--clarified the "Oracle/Sun" reference.
     
    Upvote
    11 (14 / -3)
    M

    machunter

    Seniorius Lurkius
    6
  • #39
    I am not completely up with what the copyright infringement is about in its details and the technicalities in this context, but as a developer I can appreciate a well designed API versus a bad one. So I believe there is intellectual value in a well designed API, library, classes, header file...

    Forgetting the case at hand, if there were two companies offering the exact same service over a rest API, one had a good API, the other a bad one. The company offering the good API had a lot of customers, the one with the bad API none. If the company with the bad API decided to duplicate the API of the better company, would they be infringing?
     
    Upvote
    -6 (2 / -8)
    S

    sigtgucrpv

    Seniorius Lurkius
    38
  • #40
    AreWeThereYeti":mn144zil said:
    NoOneSpecific":mn144zil said:
    For the love of God, why doesn't Google simply buy Oracle and remove the issue?
    Click to expand...

    Because buying pretty much the evilest tech company out there wouldn't fit well with "don't be evil", perhaps?
    Click to expand...

    When oracle bought Sun and everyone started complaining I was like "meh". I thought things like mySQL, OpenOffice and Virtalbox had been handed over before and that nothing could go wrong. Then I gradually realized how mistaken I was and started fearing that the Internet was right.

    So today I agree with you. If Google bought Oracle this would result in the creation of the most evil company in the History and in the Fiction.
     
    Upvote
    -2 (3 / -5)
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply