This is an ongoing copyright dispute that got started in 2010 and has been ongoing over several levels of courts since. The gist of it is that Google previously used some of Java's APIs (owned by...
This is an ongoing copyright dispute that got started in 2010 and has been ongoing over several levels of courts since. The gist of it is that Google previously used some of Java's APIs (owned by Sun and therefore Oracle) as part of creating Android. Oracle argues that this violates their copyrights, while Google argues fair use.
This is a noteworthy case as the decision could have strong effects on software development going forward, as APIs being considered copyrightable could in theory severely limit the reuse of code due to potentially stringent restrictions being placed on them. The decision for what to rule isn't necessarily a given and easy answer however; ruling that APIs aren't copyrightable could also raise the potentially difficult problem of where to draw the line between "API" and "code," possibly resulting in weakening the copyright of code as a whole.
Curious what everyone's thoughts are on this. Do you favor a specific ruling? If so, why?
As a software engineer, Oracles side is so ridiculous it's hard to describe how because it's so innately wrong. It's like if someone is trying to copyright the wheel. Or a 2x4 piece of wood. Or a...
As a software engineer, Oracles side is so ridiculous it's hard to describe how because it's so innately wrong. It's like if someone is trying to copyright the wheel. Or a 2x4 piece of wood. Or a size of nail.
To add to this, for non programmers, an API is essentially a way for applications to communicate. It's not the application itself. Sometimes an API can become pretty big, but it never contains any...
To add to this, for non programmers, an API is essentially a way for applications to communicate. It's not the application itself.
Sometimes an API can become pretty big, but it never contains any of your core functionality.
If it were to become possible to copyright an API, and sue for damages, it could fundamentally and retroactively change software development in ways that would be bad for everyone.
Oracle is trolling for cash here, they know it, and so does everyone else involved with any tech background. I think the only reason there's any conversation around it besides "wtf Oracle?" is because people want to see Google take a hit.
In this case it could hurt the rest of the software world more than it hurts Google. The question is whether or not the court will see that.
I'm not so sure about this. I think there are practical reasons why APIs shouldn't be copyrightable. However the design of a good API constitute a significant amount of work. It is certainly...
I'm not so sure about this. I think there are practical reasons why APIs shouldn't be copyrightable. However the design of a good API constitute a significant amount of work. It is certainly non-trivial and can involve novell innovation. That this would create practical problems for Devs is not a very strong argument IMO. Perhaps a thorough reform of copyright law is needed? Maybe mathematical constructs like descriptions of computer code shouldn't be copyrightable at all?
If Oracle's argument had any meaningful standing, Microsoft would have shut WINE down years ago. I am shocked they have held on this long, and and deeply disturbed at the possibility of Oracle...
If Oracle's argument had any meaningful standing, Microsoft would have shut WINE down years ago. I am shocked they have held on this long, and and deeply disturbed at the possibility of Oracle winning.
If there were money to be made by suing wine I'm fairly convinced MS would have done so ages ago. Getting a chunk of the profit from all android sales would be pretty significant.
If there were money to be made by suing wine I'm fairly convinced MS would have done so ages ago. Getting a chunk of the profit from all android sales would be pretty significant.
It's my understanding that you can (EDIT: legally) crack a program that you (EDIT: already legally) possess open and study how it works in order to make other software that's compatible. Doesn't...
It's my understanding that you can (EDIT: legally) crack a program that you (EDIT: already legally) possess open and study how it works in order to make other software that's compatible. Doesn't make sense to me to permit that but not allow it when it comes to just the API.
Many software TOS explicitly forbid reverse engineering. I don't know if those clauses are illegal in some jurisdictions (certainly hope so), or if you're mistaken; but it's worth mentioning.
Many software TOS explicitly forbid reverse engineering.
I don't know if those clauses are illegal in some jurisdictions (certainly hope so), or if you're mistaken; but it's worth mentioning.
From Wikipedia: The courts have thus far been unwilling to overturn the ban on cameras, citing "concerns with expenditure of judicial time on administration and oversight of broadcasting; the...
From Wikipedia:
The courts have thus far been unwilling to overturn the ban on cameras, citing "concerns with expenditure of judicial time on administration and oversight of broadcasting; the necessity of sequestering juries so that they will not look at the television program of the trial itself; the difficulty in empaneling an impartial jury in the case of a retrial; the necessity of larger jury panels or increased use of marshals; the psychological effects on witnesses, jurors, lawyers, and judges; and related considerations of 'solemnity,' 'dignity,' and the like."
This is an ongoing copyright dispute that got started in 2010 and has been ongoing over several levels of courts since. The gist of it is that Google previously used some of Java's APIs (owned by Sun and therefore Oracle) as part of creating Android. Oracle argues that this violates their copyrights, while Google argues fair use.
This is a noteworthy case as the decision could have strong effects on software development going forward, as APIs being considered copyrightable could in theory severely limit the reuse of code due to potentially stringent restrictions being placed on them. The decision for what to rule isn't necessarily a given and easy answer however; ruling that APIs aren't copyrightable could also raise the potentially difficult problem of where to draw the line between "API" and "code," possibly resulting in weakening the copyright of code as a whole.
Curious what everyone's thoughts are on this. Do you favor a specific ruling? If so, why?
As a software engineer, Oracles side is so ridiculous it's hard to describe how because it's so innately wrong. It's like if someone is trying to copyright the wheel. Or a 2x4 piece of wood. Or a size of nail.
To add to this, for non programmers, an API is essentially a way for applications to communicate. It's not the application itself.
Sometimes an API can become pretty big, but it never contains any of your core functionality.
If it were to become possible to copyright an API, and sue for damages, it could fundamentally and retroactively change software development in ways that would be bad for everyone.
Oracle is trolling for cash here, they know it, and so does everyone else involved with any tech background. I think the only reason there's any conversation around it besides "wtf Oracle?" is because people want to see Google take a hit.
In this case it could hurt the rest of the software world more than it hurts Google. The question is whether or not the court will see that.
I'm not so sure about this. I think there are practical reasons why APIs shouldn't be copyrightable. However the design of a good API constitute a significant amount of work. It is certainly non-trivial and can involve novell innovation. That this would create practical problems for Devs is not a very strong argument IMO. Perhaps a thorough reform of copyright law is needed? Maybe mathematical constructs like descriptions of computer code shouldn't be copyrightable at all?
If Oracle's argument had any meaningful standing, Microsoft would have shut WINE down years ago. I am shocked they have held on this long, and and deeply disturbed at the possibility of Oracle winning.
If there were money to be made by suing wine I'm fairly convinced MS would have done so ages ago. Getting a chunk of the profit from all android sales would be pretty significant.
It's my understanding that you can (EDIT: legally) crack a program that you (EDIT: already legally) possess open and study how it works in order to make other software that's compatible. Doesn't make sense to me to permit that but not allow it when it comes to just the API.
Many software TOS explicitly forbid reverse engineering.
I don't know if those clauses are illegal in some jurisdictions (certainly hope so), or if you're mistaken; but it's worth mentioning.
Those clauses are illegal in most of Europe, thankfully.
Any insight as to why video recording isn't allowed?
From Wikipedia:
The courts have thus far been unwilling to overturn the ban on cameras, citing "concerns with expenditure of judicial time on administration and oversight of broadcasting; the necessity of sequestering juries so that they will not look at the television program of the trial itself; the difficulty in empaneling an impartial jury in the case of a retrial; the necessity of larger jury panels or increased use of marshals; the psychological effects on witnesses, jurors, lawyers, and judges; and related considerations of 'solemnity,' 'dignity,' and the like."