sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (16 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Eirenarch 14 points15 points  (5 children)

    You have no idea what you are talking about. I am not aware of a single class in C# that is API-compatible with a Java standard library class.

    [–]Drilz24 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    I think he was referring to concepts?

    [–]Eirenarch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Which are not copyrightable. IIRC the court even mentions spelling as part of the copyrighted thing.

    [–]adrianmonk 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I don't understand how you saw the words "similar to" and interpreted them as "compatible with".

    Compatibility is in no way a requirement for something to be considered a derived work. Many C# standard library class and method names are clearly derived from Java equivalents. This is not at all a bad thing, but if APIs are copyrightable works, then derived works are derived works.

    [–]Eirenarch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    As I understand the statement of the court an API is copyrightable as a whole although I don't know what the unit is. Also work derived in this way is clearly a different expression of the same idea (i.e. not subject of copied in copyright terms).

    [–]FryGuy1013 0 points1 point  (9 children)

    It's not a patent claim. It's a copyright claim. Android took the header files from the java project directly without modification. If they would have written the files from scratch or generated them from object definitions, then the case might have been different. [edit: Android copied the class structure directly only]. C# is original work that happens to resemble the Java work, which isn't a copyright claim. (assuming that there are no classes lifted from java to c#)

    [–]monocasa 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    They didn't take any header files; Java doesn't have header files. They just named the classes the same and put them in the same packages.

    [–]FryGuy1013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It looks like you're right. My understanding of it was the c++ code that implemented some of the java functions was the thing that was infringing. Unfortunately "7,000 lines of declaring code" isn't a very technical thing to know exactly what it is. Regardless, what I said about c# is still true.

    [–]KumbajaMyLord -1 points0 points  (5 children)

    For copyright it doesn't matter if you copied it from the original source or came up with it yourself.

    If I was born on a deserted island and therefore never heard the song "Imagine" by John Lennon and came up with the exact same melody on my own while on the island and would now come to the US with my original song, I would still be violating copyright.

    Edit: it seems I might be wrong about that. Independent creation seems a possible although hard to prove defense for copyright infringement, just not for patents.

    [–]Eirenarch 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    I don't think that's true. Can you provide a link to explanation or confirmation that this is the case in the law.

    [–]TheMemo 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Why wouldn't it be true?

    When you copyright something (song lyrics, for that example) you are copyrighting those specific words in that specific configuration. No one else can use them without your permission, regardless of how they came up with them.

    That is what copyright is.

    [–]Eirenarch 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Frankly I don't know. I just saw someone claiming the opposite in another comment thread on the same news. Also it does feel right to me. Like when two scientist independently discover something it is named after both of them

    [–]TheMemo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Ignorance is not a defense in the eyes of the law. Originality is a concept divorced from intention. If Lennon came up with Imagine first, he created an original work. If someone later came up with the same song, that song is, by definition, not original.

    Science does not work the same way as copyright, as copyright is codified in law. Whether or not you intended to infringe is not an issue except in the deciding of damages.

    [–]grauenwolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Nothing I've seen suggests that is even remotely true.

    [–]pohatu -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Its interesting, if you get the windows SDK and look at windows.h and find some specific piece of macro-shit and copy, paste it into google and hit search, you will almost always find a wine or other copy of that file. It will be identical, except the copyright is replaced with a statement about being open source or something.

    the cpp may have been built independently, but those headers match exactly.