Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by gefh on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @01:46PM
(#16690977)
How many ways are there to define max? Surely AT&T should turn around and sue Oracle for lifting max(a, b) from stdlib. Or maybe SCO will rise from the grave and try it again.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by hcknwscommenter on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @02:31PM
(#16691419)
An infinite number of ways. Call it max(b,a) [i.e., reverse the order of b and a inputs]. But Google didn't do any of that. They copied.
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by tankenmate on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @02:46PM
(#16691551)
The previous remark's point was that Java copied many C functions, inventions largely of AT&T and BSD.
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by hcknwscommenter on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @05:59PM
(#16693140)
I see the point, but that's "whataboutism." I also have no idea who owns the copyright (if anyone does) to stdlib APIs, and whether Oracle obtained license. Do you?
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by wtallis on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @09:31PM
(#16694431)
> (if anyone does)
There's no doubt that if it is established that APIs are subject to copyright, then someone owns copyright to the C standard library APIs. It's not old enough for copyright to have expired, and nobody has ever released the APIs to the public domain (because nobody ever seriously thought that such a thing would be necessary). Establishing API copyright as a real thing without broad fair use rights would throw into doubt the copyright ownership of a large portion of all software ever written.
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by FeepingCreature on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @03:08PM
(#16691771)
You could call it max(b,a) but that would be fucking stupid.
People shouldn't have to write shit code cause judges are tech illiterate.
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by hcknwscommenter on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @06:05PM
(#16693196)
And just how is max(a,b) good code and max(b,a) bad code?
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by FeepingCreature on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @02:14AM
(#16695774)
Because the alphabet goes a, b, c, not b, a, c. The lexical ordering is uniquely privileged both when reading and writing.
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by chii on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @08:03PM
(#16693952)
Code written for one will fail for the other, and negates the whole point of interoperability. Therefore the method signature should not be copyrightable
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by sjwright on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @02:51AM
(#16695932)
Beware interpreting copyright law with the assumption that interoperability is relevant. The law doesn't care.
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by chii on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @05:26PM
(#16702110)
copyright has a fair use clause, which states that one can decompile software to produce a derivative for the purposes of interoperability. This then must assume that any apis being implemented has to both fall under copyright (otherwise, this law does not apply to api), but also means that the law allows for the use of the api for the purposes of interoperability (and therefore, you cannot claim to have the sole rights to an api).