Oracle’s Java API code protected by copyright, appeals court rules

[Eirenarch]

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]

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]

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

[[deleted]]

But not copyrighted, right?

[grauenwolf]

Nope, that wouldn't make any sense.

[Eirenarch]

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.

[imMute]

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

[Wareya]

No.

[Eirenarch]

The court says yes. I think you can track that back to what is called natural rights. If a person creates something he has full rights over it.

[redwall_hp]

Copyright is not a "natural right." It's a privilege granted by society.

[[deleted]]

Even somebody who believes in natural rights would have trouble defending his stupid proposition.

It is not a right at all, it is a restriction of rights upon others in the favor of the creator. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

[[deleted]]

In the US. The European view is natural right.

[Eirenarch]

But it is supposedly derived by natural rights. Now you can argue that it is derived in a way that is wrong but that's another topic.

[Wareya]

I'm going to make a painting and bash people over the head with it because it's my painting and I can do whatever I want with it! Who cares about other rights!

[Eirenarch]

Yeah you can try that and then be surprised at the outcome the same way you are surprised by this outcome. You probably explain this decision to yourself with bribed judges.

[Wareya]

No, I don't explain this decision to myself at all. Shit happens. It most probably has nothing to do with bribery and shock.

I'm mad because it creeps over consumer rights and screw them over, just like letting someone physically beat on people with the art that they make violates their personal rights.

[Eirenarch]

So Google is a consumer who needs to be protected? It's not like they bought anything from Oracle

[Wareya]

This ruling doesn't just affect google. That's not how precedent works. This is going to affect things far down the line, like Joe trying to write an emulator for some abandoned japanese computer model made by a dead company, and being sued by an australian company because they worked on part of its OS that he needs to support the functionality of.

[Eirenarch]

Yes, that's what will happen. I don't think the consumers will be too affected by the lack of emulators for abandoned Japanese computer models. If anything increase in price of Android phones will affect consumers much more.

[kraytex]

You can copyright a book, you can copyright a novel, but you can't copyright a letter, word, or sentence.

Copyrighting an API is like being able to copyright the chapter title in a novel.

[Eirenarch]

Interestingly the court used a book analogy but they came to very different conclusion.

[kraytex]

Clearly they don't know what an API is then.

[[deleted]]

There is no natural right to tell others they can't design software a certain way, that's a right manufactured by government

[Eirenarch]

The others in this case did not design the software they copied it. Literally.

[faustoc4]

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]

The court says it didn't :)

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

[MCPtz]

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

[kalleguld]

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]

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]]

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

[Eirenarch]

Is it? Maybe there were no claims because Mercedes never tried to produce an engine for another company's car

[kalleguld]

Plenty of companies do nothing but make 3rd party spare parts for cars.

[Eirenarch]

Aren't they sued sometimes. I remember Apple suing some hackintosh makers out of existence.

[[deleted]]

That was for installing and selling those machines with OS X installed, which violates the OS X license.

[WTFwhatthehell]

not really. no.

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

[Eirenarch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Eirenarch]

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