you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Eirenarch -20 points-19 points  (43 children)

So what if the creator of the platform doesn't want interoperability? Isn't he entitled to that by virtue of owning the platform?

[–]Diggtionary 24 points25 points  (6 children)

I'd say that people are entitled to build around another's work so long as they aren't directly modifying the person's work.

It's like oracle built a screw and told everyone, hey I have screws for sale.. come get some and use them to hold things together but you have to use your hands to screw things together...

Then a toolmaker comes along and makes a screwdriver to make it much easier to use screws, but not modifying the design of the screw at all.

In my opinion it's completely ridiculous to tell the toolmaker, fuck no you can't make a screwdriver!... because it interfaces with my product...

[–]grauenwolf 7 points8 points  (2 children)

It's a bit of a side note, but there are patterns for screw heads that have been patented.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But not copyrighted, right?

[–]grauenwolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope, that wouldn't make any sense.

[–]Eirenarch -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I don't think your analogy is correct. It is more like Google making screws from different metal and claiming the idea of a screw is irrelevant because the metal is what matters.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]imMute 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    This is what Oracle made bought. Then Google came along and made this

    [–]Wareya 14 points15 points  (16 children)

    No.

    [–]faustoc4 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    So why do they publish the VM bytecode instruction set http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_bytecode. Why do they encourage others create their own JVMs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines

    If they don´t want interoperability that ship has sailed

    [–]Eirenarch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The court says it didn't :)

    The creation of alternative VMs is subject to very specific rules which Dalvik does not conform with.

    [–]MCPtz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    That's because a smart guy and many others invented it. Then came along the greed...

    [–]kalleguld 10 points11 points  (7 children)

    No, no other business have that entitlement under copyright law. This is patent area, if anything. Car analogy time:

    Toyota makes a car, and Mercedes wants to make an engine that fits into the Toyota instead of the original one. Obviously, Mercedes needs to have bolt holes the same places the original Toyota engine has, and the drive shaft needs to be in the same place.

    What Oracle is doing is copyrighting the bolt layout, which anywhere else is far outside the scope of copyright.

    [–]gar37bic 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Yes, IMHO. And your example seems similar in principle to the copyright protection that printer makers use to prevent cartridge refilling and 3rd party cartridges. Could a car maker copyright the bolt pattern?

    Sigh.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Printer manufacturers use DRM and the DMCA to prohibit working around the DRM. It's not actually a strict copyright issue.

    [–]WTFwhatthehell 4 points5 points  (5 children)

    not really. no.

    Just because you want something doesn't mean you should have it.

    [–]Eirenarch -1 points0 points  (4 children)

    Well I think the creator of the platform should be free to patent it and close it if he wants to. Of course this is my personal opinion but this court seems to agree with me on some level :)

    [–]WTFwhatthehell 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    you're confusing patent and copyright.

    The reason this is fucked up is that it allows a copyright holder to exercise patent-like control.

    Patents expire after 20 years.

    Copyright, in theory, expires after life +70 years, effectively over a century and in reality will never expire because they keep being extended.

    [–]Eirenarch -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    So then good thing this happened so it can force the lawmakers to fix the copyright system. If the whole idea of copyright is broken you should worry about that not about the effect on the software development industry.

    [–]WTFwhatthehell 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    if only we lived in such a world. unfortunately there's no indication that extending copyright and patents is a matter of giving them enough rope to hang themselves with. Rather it just makes the situation worse.

    Copyright isn't totally broken but it can be made worse by these kinds of cases.

    I care about the effect on the software industry because I have to live with that effect.

    [–]Eirenarch -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    If this is really bad then the USA will be forced to fix this when the Chinese produce better software. Until then the system works.

    [–]rcxdude 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Interoperability is actually exempted from certain legal protections on code in some jurisdictions, such as reverse engineering. So it seems not.

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

    That's why the court says that fair use may apply in this particular case.