News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Oracle API Case.

Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac... by bane on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:52PM (#9801696)
As a result, I've decided to write a perl script that generates random APIs in some API-space, compress the new API and then store it all as blobs to disk while simultaneously filing for a copyright on all of these APIs.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac... by gnoway on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:54PM (#9801709)
Are you sure that's a good idea? You might inadvertently implement someone elses's API that way.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac... by dragonwriter on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:56PM (#9801713)
Inadvertent similarity is only an issue with patents, not copyrights.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac... by justinlardinois on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:06PM (#9801773)
That's not true. Inadvertent similarity can still be copyright infringement. Sam Smith's "Stay with Me" is a good recent example.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac... by dragonwriter on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:13PM (#9801794)
> Inadvertent similarity can still be copyright infringement.

No, it can't. Copyright violation requires an actual copy or derivative work, not independent works that have coincidental similarity.

> Sam Smith's "Stay with Me" is a good recent example.

Its an example of something where one party claimed copyright infringement, the other party claimed inadvertent similarity, and the facts were never resolved because the two parties reached an undisclosed settlement.

It is not an example of something both actually being copyright infringement while also actually being inadvertent similarity.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac... by netheril96 on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:58PM (#9801995)
Wasn't copyright protection only applicable to creative expressions of a human? Computer generated expressions are not protected by it, if I understand it correctly.
[ Parent | on HN ]