News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google. Parent comment

Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google by monocasa on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @01:14PM (#16690642)
Triviality isn't the determining factor of what's copyrightable.

Edit: And particularly there's tons of case law that this stuff isn't copyrightable, see Sony v. Bleem, where a company literally wrote an emulator of a PS1, and courts said that was fine. Even to straight up sell as a competing product, and for running on competitors machines.

Edit2: And the otherwise shitty DMCA even has explicit exemptions for software interoperability purposes.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google by treis on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @01:32PM (#16690825)
In Sony v. Bleem they used blackbox testing and created their own original code from that. If Google had done the sam they would have been fine.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google by monocasa on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @01:38PM (#16690893)
Because of Java's reflection, a black box approach would have given you the same API names that are being discussed here.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @01:02AM (#16695425)
Not necessarily. You don't have to "look" at the reflection.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google by monocasa on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @11:27AM (#16698412)
You do to be API compliant.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @01:01AM (#16695421)
Bleem did not copy. An emulator is not necessarily a copy.
[ Parent | on HN ]