Re:Copilot under fire as dev claims it emits 'large chunks o...
by saghm on Thursday October 20, 2022 @05:55PM
(#33281343)
> For example, when Google reimplemented Java for Android, they didn't copy the OpenJDK code. They just wrote their own code that fulfilled what the methods did. If they'd taken the OpenJDK code and just renamed a variable or two in each method, I think Oracle would have had a very strong case.
One of the things I remember reading about that trial was that one of the Oracle lawyers was adamant that a method called "rangeCheck" had been copied and that it was proof that Google was able to get Android out into the market faster than if they hadn't copied code. The method was used inside the standard library (but not exported as part of the API) to check if the index of an array was out of bounds and throw the proper exception (so basically, if index < 0 throw one thing, if index >= length throw a different one, otherwise do nothing). The judge who heard the original case (and the second one at that level after the appeals court sent it back down to judge whether it was fair-use) had programmed in other languages in the past and decided to learn Java before the trial, so he was able to tell that this was such a trivial bit of code that it wasn't at all surprising that the code was the same and that even if it were copied, it would not expedite Android's appearance in the market in any noticeable way, leading to this amazing quote:
"I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America --how could you even make that kind of argument?"
Obviously most judges won't have this level of technical experience (I remember reading about a different case where a judge upheld an objection to the prosecution zooming into a photo on an iPad due to worrying that it might manipulate the image inaccurately, but then didn't have a problem with them wheeling in a giant TV instead of displaying the imaged scaled up on that), but I think the law has a capacity for nuance about these sort of technical issues that might surprise some programmers, especially with regards to the fact that intent and context can sometimes matter as much or even more than the end of result of something.
One of the things I remember reading about that trial was that one of the Oracle lawyers was adamant that a method called "rangeCheck" had been copied and that it was proof that Google was able to get Android out into the market faster than if they hadn't copied code. The method was used inside the standard library (but not exported as part of the API) to check if the index of an array was out of bounds and throw the proper exception (so basically, if index < 0 throw one thing, if index >= length throw a different one, otherwise do nothing). The judge who heard the original case (and the second one at that level after the appeals court sent it back down to judge whether it was fair-use) had programmed in other languages in the past and decided to learn Java before the trial, so he was able to tell that this was such a trivial bit of code that it wasn't at all surprising that the code was the same and that even if it were copied, it would not expedite Android's appearance in the market in any noticeable way, leading to this amazing quote:
"I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America --how could you even make that kind of argument?"
Obviously most judges won't have this level of technical experience (I remember reading about a different case where a judge upheld an objection to the prosecution zooming into a photo on an iPad due to worrying that it might manipulate the image inaccurately, but then didn't have a problem with them wheeling in a giant TV instead of displaying the imaged scaled up on that), but I think the law has a capacity for nuance about these sort of technical issues that might surprise some programmers, especially with regards to the fact that intent and context can sometimes matter as much or even more than the end of result of something.