Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by jmpeax on Saturday November 16, 2019 @04:01AM
(#21551708)
I'd bet that isolated examples couldn't be copyrighted any more than a single sentence in a novel couldn't be copyrighted. Doesn't it have to do with the whole work?
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by shakna on Saturday November 16, 2019 @05:34AM
(#21551967)
The case is about APIs, not the whole work. By their very nature, all APIs are both:
1. Single sentence.
2. Usually obvious. In fact, just about every API definition in the above linked String method list is blatantly obvious, and many of the APIs look similar to ones in various other completely incompatible languages.
So even if you argue the copyrighted work is comprised of the whole set of APIs, it may be patent-able as an invention, but it does not seem reasonable to suggest it be protected by copyright.
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by pacala on Saturday November 16, 2019 @03:56PM
(#21554899)
Hopefully only the specific Java incantation. Other languages have different syntax, so arguably they are not Java.
Java: public String concat(String str)
Javascript: String.prototype.concat ( [ string1 [ , string2 [ , … ] ] ] )
Python: def __add__(self, *args, **kwargs)
C++: function <string> std::operator+ (string)
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by edoceo on Saturday November 16, 2019 @12:29AM
(#21551185)
Use vararg for parameters to pass to iconv
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by nickthemagicman on Saturday November 16, 2019 @07:32AM
(#21552348)
Just rename it : Konkat. Easy /s
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/String.h...
So...I guess this api signature for string concatenation is on the verge of being owned by oracle forever. Perhaps I can create a non-derived work by adding a few extra arguments.