The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Google vs. Oracle Supreme Court Megathread
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:14 AM Author: electric tripping famous landscape painting https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-america-oral-argument (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41064823) |
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:16 AM Author: yellow narrow-minded hunting ground stead Cliffs on dispute? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41064834) |
 |
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:18 AM Author: spectacular half-breed site Oracle owns X Google wanted to use X Oracle said no Google built their own X in a way that copies certain aspect of it Oracle said u cant do that Google said no u Lawyers have been fat and happy since |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:19 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle frisky pistol forum Any important issues at stake? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41064854) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:23 AM Author: spectacular half-breed site is it ok to copy certain types of code in your shit in order to make it work nicely with other people's shit, if the type of code being coped are things like names, headers, and organizational structure (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41064885) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:45 AM Author: Blathering old irish cottage keepsake machete (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065049) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:48 AM Author: spectacular half-breed site dont think so - the issue here is that they explicitly copied code rather than have same look/functionality (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065070) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:52 AM Author: Alcoholic nighttime turdskin new edge is literally Chromium engine, not just imitation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065112) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 5:19 PM Author: Dun Hilarious Senate It is explicitly available under open-source licensing though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41067166) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 3:23 PM Author: domesticated sable point wagecucks It's super important for software copyrights but stupid because it's only really about moving money from one deep pocket to the next. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41066502) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:19 AM Author: yellow narrow-minded hunting ground stead TY. Why did it go all the way to SCOTUS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41064861) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:22 AM Author: Cocky Stain the question is whether there can be an intellectual property claim on a ubiquitous piece of code. it would be like someone claiming to own the concept of laying gravel underneath pavement. maybe, maybe they could own a very specific blend of gravel, but not use of gravel in general. it's a foundational aspect of road building. letting someone own it would be absurd.
put another way: what code can you copy paste for free? |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:06 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction This is a shitty summary (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065965) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 3:15 PM Author: Cocky Stain ty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41066456) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 3:24 PM Author: domesticated sable point wagecucks Iron monkey is a retard. How's that for a summary? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41066509) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 3:36 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction Also shitty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41066581) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 12:41 PM Author: domesticated sable point wagecucks But accurate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41073688) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 5:22 PM Author: Dun Hilarious Senate The question is "is source code more like text in a book or a mathematical formula"? The latter has no IP protection while the former is protected by copyright, though the ideas are clearly not protected, just the actual text. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41067195) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 11:06 AM Author: ruby office I don’t know why I’m doing this for you assfucks, but I’ll give you a real summary. In programming, an overarching principle is that you make self-contained and consistent pieces of code block that fit together and can be easily replaced or tested on their own. This is how people can use code from open source or how divisions across large companies can all contribute to the same code base without stepping on each others’ toes. This is a dumb example, but one piece of code might gather data from everywhere and prepare it in a series of arrays. Another might take arrays, and spit out either a batch of K-means clustered classifications or an error. Then another might take classified batches, and match them with ads to serve. Each step has no responsibility for what goes on inside another step. They just know what data goes in, what data comes out and what the function is called. In this way, you can just call a KMeans function, and people swap in and out all the stuff behind it, and the rest of the chain is unaffected. These are called interfaces.
Now, google, in its early years played fast and loose with integrating code their didn’t have their rights to. In one such case, they used some Java library owned by Sun. Sun brought this up, and google removed the Sun code and replaced it with code they wrote themselves. Problem is, in order to effectively swap it out, they left the interface the same. Same input, same output and same function name. And in most cases it was absolutely trivial. Like one poster said, things like the double max(double, double) function. They had to remove the part where Java wrote code for which number was larger, and returned the larger one. Oracle is suing not because google copied its max function, but because they’re calling their max function “max”. Of note, this is not limited to just the max function and I do not know specifically if the max function is even part of this. All I know is most of the code here is pretty trivial. |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 11:08 AM Author: wine vigorous faggot firefighter double fault Didn’t read this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41072951) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 11:13 AM Author: spectacular half-breed site this is great thx. now imagine explaining it to 80 yo SCOTUS justices
what do you think of the argument that they could have done it properly, they just didnt want to pay the $? |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 7:09 PM Author: hairraiser heaven what happens if two people send each other a text message at the same time? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41076474) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 11:19 AM Author: bearded gaping I don't know much about IP law, but protecting the word "max" (or one like it) strikes me as absurd. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41073044) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 1:06 PM Author: Dun Hilarious Senate So double tells you the return type, and max iirc is a function that returns the maximum of a dataset. But yes, that's a huge part of the issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41073938) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 9:48 PM Author: bearded gaping "Which is biggest?" (or the function equivalent) also strikes me as an absurd thing to qualify for copyright protection. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41077426) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 10:04 PM Author: Dun Hilarious Senate Agreed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41077558) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 12:36 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction Yes, the questions are (a) whether the relatively short headers (declaring code) are protected by copyright, and (b) whether copying them to achieve interoperability constitutes fair use. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41073655) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 7:05 PM Author: ruby office Yep. Which is obviously bullshit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41076461) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 7:23 PM Author: fluffy nursing home Is it just names or lifting the interface too? Like the process steps? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41076543) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 7:27 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction Which position on which issue is bullshit? The Federal Circuit opinion made a lot of sense based on the case law, although they might have been to dismissive of Google's fair use case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41076560) |
|
Date: October 9th, 2020 1:23 PM Author: ruby office That interfaces are protected by copyright is bullshit. Copyright should be used to protect creativity and/or hard work. This is copyrighting “, and” as a method of joining two independent clauses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41080878) |
|
Date: October 9th, 2020 2:11 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction I mean, if you want to re-write over a century of copyright precedent, that's fine. But that's not really what a court should be doing.
"This is copyrighting “, and” as a method of joining two independent clauses."
No, it's really not, for at least the reason that ", and" is not original to any person alive. |
|
Date: October 9th, 2020 5:35 PM Author: ruby office You don’t know how code works if you think these aren’t the same. “Max” also wasn’t invented by a living person. In fact, the max function just calls an optimized C algorithm, that compiles to assembly that uses the CPU to optimize finding the maximum. The fact that you called this function a “max” is not the fist time in human history this has been done. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41082351) |
|
Date: October 9th, 2020 5:57 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction If you want to retry the evidence in the case, that's one thing, but there doesn't seem to be any dispute that the originality requirement for the code at issue was met, which is what you're now arguing.
It sounds like you don't know much about copyright law, and are arguing based on what you want the law to be, not what the law is.
You can argue "this shouldn't be protectable" all you want, but the court is deciding whether this *is* protectable.
|
|
Date: October 10th, 2020 2:16 AM Author: ruby office You're right. I heard this is exactly what the judiciary does. Tell me more about how Roe v Wade interpreted the existing laws correctly.
And unsarcastically, I am saying what SCOTUS should do for the good of our nation. Not what they are going to do. |
|
Date: October 13th, 2020 1:47 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction Roe v. Wade was a poorly reasoned decision. If you're in favor of poorly-reasoned decisions, then we have a fundamental disagreement.
I generally fall in the camp where I prefer courts to apply the law cleanly even if it reaches a suboptimal result, thereby forcing the legislature to improve the law.
In this case, though, SCOTUS could probably reverse the Fed. Cir. on fair use in a way that doesn't fuck up the legal precedent. |
|
Date: April 6th, 2021 12:05 PM Author: ruby office Fair use does need to be addressed in the programming world more acutely (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#42230625) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2021 12:15 PM Author: Chocolate apoplectic theater stage Good summary. The overarching principle described in the first paragraph is called "encapsulation".
https://www.nerd.vision/post/polymorphism-encapsulation-data-abstraction-and-inheritance-in-object-oriented-programming |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:22 AM Author: Alcoholic nighttime turdskin because the 'X' that Oracle claims to have intellectual property over here is "a function called min(x,y) that gives the minimum of the numeric values x and y" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41064884) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:24 AM Author: wild 180 institution lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41064894) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:32 AM Author: spectacular half-breed site from wikipedia
Industry and legal experts had stated an Oracle victory could create a chilling effect in software development, with copyright holders using the copyright on APIs to prevent their use in developing interoperable alternatives through reverse engineering, as common in open source software development.[77][78][79] At the same time, a judgement favoring Google's position may weaken protection for copyright for software code developers, allowing competitors with better resources to develop improved products from smaller firms, and reduce the motive for innovation within the industry.[80][81]
|
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 7:21 PM Author: light mad-dog skullcap plaza Oh no not the motive for innovation!!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41076533) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:20 AM Author: electric tripping famous landscape painting https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/case-preview-justices-to-weigh-in-on-landmark-copyright-battle-between-google-and-oracle/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41064863) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:22 AM Author: provocative misunderstood resort pretty 180 that even mega giants don’t always settle long running expensive disputes resulting in big riche$ for lawyer$ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41064875) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:41 AM Author: ruby office If google doesn’t spend/win this now, they will have everyone coming after them for billion dollar settlements every month. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065028) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:42 AM Author: provocative misunderstood resort explain Oracle though. pot committed? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065031) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:50 AM Author: ruby office It’s their only hope. They haven’t made a relevant product in 20 years. Their entire business model is to rent seek on their old tech that they make impossible for old users to move away from. They’re trying to find a new way to monetize their old shit, and turns out patent trolling has potential. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065093) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:55 AM Author: overrated business firm But now they have TikTok! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065138) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:57 AM Author: spectacular half-breed site *the right to provide services to TikTok (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065152) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:47 AM Author: Laughsome drunken philosopher-king Isn't this about less than 10 billion dollars? Not exactly bet the company litigation for Google. Or would they lose the code? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065063) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:49 AM Author: spectacular half-breed site it's the 'principle'
Opponents of the federal court's ruling, including Google and other developers of Android-based software, have raised several concerns including the impact on interoperability, software innovation and the potential for bad actors to pick up the rights to old software and file claims against companies who built their software under what were assumed were open standards. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it is believed that companies will be forced to implement deliberately incompatible standards to protect themselves from the risk of complex litigation, moving away from the current trends in software development which have focused on improving interoperability between different services allowing apps to communicate with one another, creating more integrated platforms for end users.[ |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:52 AM Author: ruby office It’s not the principle. If anything, google wants to retain the right to sue others for this exact same reason. The problem is that they built their business on myriad versions of “copying” obvious things from others, and would be vulnerable to 100s of billions in other liabilities if oracle can win something like this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065118) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 11:57 AM Author: spectacular half-breed site well when i say principle i mean it's not about the money at stake in the trial but everything beyond it. yes it's basically greed on all sides (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065151) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:04 PM Author: garnet contagious rigpig station There’s a much bigger principle at stake re APIs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065955) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 1:37 PM Author: out-of-control shrine pozpig I trust the 70 year old lawyers on the SCOTUS to correctly set policy in tech. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065749) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 1:45 PM Author: Saffron property Maybe they will send it back for a third jury trial (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065813) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 1:53 PM Author: yellow narrow-minded hunting ground stead Are we Team Oracle on this one? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065864) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 1:55 PM Author: spectacular half-breed site tough to say. oracle is shitty and wants lockin across systems/platforms
google is even shittier and will destroy privacy/the world |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:26 PM Author: ruby office Oracle winning wouldn’t change Google. And Oracle is even worse in that they do nothing and employ retards. But I guess this may be why XO likes them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41066097) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:40 PM Author: spectacular half-breed site sup larry (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41066206) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:45 PM Author: yellow narrow-minded hunting ground stead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41066259) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 1:59 PM Author: maroon den party of the first part I am sure Thomas will fully understand the facts and law of this case, and make a thoughtful and informed decision. He definitely won't as the federalist society what they think (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065922) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:01 PM Author: yellow narrow-minded hunting ground stead (Sbarro employee) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065942) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 10:04 PM Author: Razzle-dazzle frisky pistol forum (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41077562) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:03 PM Author: garnet contagious rigpig station Sun Microsystems, who developed Java, was cool with Google’s use. But Oracle bought Sun and Oracle are dicks. They’re trying to copyright APIs which are basically the way the software talks to other software (ie it’s purely functional).
This would really hamper software dev and make it much harder for startups of the court rules for Oracle. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:08 PM Author: maroon den party of the first part ITT lawdorks and tech geeks who don't realize the court is a political body that will vote in the republican's best interest (Oracle) or whichever company donated the most money to the political party (Google).
6-2 google (Alito and Thomas the no breakfast of the court now) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:05 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction The Federal Circuit had the right answer on copyright protectability as a matter of law (whether that's good policy is another matter), but I havent really followed the fair use arguments since then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065960) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:08 PM Author: spectacular half-breed site that it was infringement? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065982) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:11 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction That the code at issue is protectable by copyright. They remanded for a decision on fair use. After that I'm not sure what happened. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065997) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:38 PM Author: spectacular half-breed site why do u thin it is right dfecisio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41066187) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:49 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction Basically, because it meets all the elements for copyright protection, and does not fit into any of the exclusions.
The quantum of originality needed for protection is extremely low. The scenes-a-faire and merger doctrines that a lot of people try to use to create an "interoperability" exclusion don't really fit, and would have to be given special application in the software context that they don't get in any other context.
If I need to use your characters to create my own sequel to your novel, that doesn't make your characters unprotectable under the scenes a faire or merger doctrines.
The Federal Circuit opinion on this basically mirrors arguments I had to make 10-15 years ago in another case, which I think are the right arguments.
The closer question is whether copying/use of headers for interoperability purposes should or can be considered a fair use, and whether that is entirely up to the fact finder. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:57 PM Author: scarlet zippy hospital > exclusions
Software functionality isn’t really the type of subject matter that should fall under copyright. We already have patents for that. Oracle sued on their patents too, and lost on those claims.
17 USC 102:
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 3:09 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction They are not claiming protection for "functionality." They are claiming protection for literal text. Section 102 is a codification of the idea/expression spectrum, whereby literal text is on the extreme "expression" end of the spectrum.
|
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 3:19 PM Author: scarlet zippy hospital The idea/expression dichotomy is only one of the aspects of the exception.
The “method”, “process” seem more of a functional/non-functional dichotomy. This same dichotomy exists in trademarks/patents.
Google *is* asking that functional aspects to be deemed not protectable under 102(b). |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 3:41 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction "The idea/expression dichotomy is only one of the aspects of the exception."
I, and a good amount of caselaw, disagree.
"The “method”, “process” seem more of a functional/non-functional dichotomy. This same dichotomy exists in trademarks/patents."
Except the Copyright Act excludes literary works (i.e., software code) from the "useful article" limitations of Section 113. This normally how copyright deals with issues of functionality, and it doesn't apply to software. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 7:05 PM Author: scarlet zippy hospital You apparently have a good grasp of copyright law, and even have case law on your side.
I just personally don’t like the direction copyright is going. That’s all I have. |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 12:39 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction I have probably performed more research on this particular issue than anyone on the bort, for a case that could have resolved this issue over a decade ago, but got decided on other grounds.
As a matter of policy, it might be better if this kind of copying were allowed. That's why, if you're not going to re-write the Copyright Act, fair use (which has always been a vague, policy-oriented doctrine) is a better argument than non-protectability. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 2:09 PM Author: salmon toaster who cares (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41065984) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2020 5:26 PM Author: effete state Amazing how much Google has poured into this issue that would have been clear cut 10 years ago (and still is, tbh). Should be easy win for Oracle. But every tech company is trying to convince Roberts that the sky will fall if Google loses. Hint: it won’t, but Roberts and the Chamber of Commerce cucks could buy it.
Lol @ the erosion of IP protections to help big tech build its dominance. |
|
Date: October 9th, 2020 2:14 PM Author: bearded gaping Give me the normative argument for why the law should protect the specific things Oracle seeks to protect in this case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41081212) |
|
Date: October 9th, 2020 5:47 PM Author: Brindle water buffalo base Intellectual Property is Theft |
|
Date: October 8th, 2020 10:11 PM Author: Sickened trip brunch mood The CR would be for SCOTUS to dismiss the petition as improvidently gave granted so we can all lol at 80yo justices not understanding IP or tech. They already royally fucked up patent law with their ridiculous 101 jurisprudence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41077619) |
|
Date: October 9th, 2020 5:46 PM Author: hyperactive pit thanks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41082419) |
|
Date: October 9th, 2020 5:50 PM Author: Brindle water buffalo base If the summaries ITT are accurate, I'm with Google all the way
Copyright is for rewarding creativity not for being a bar on functionality.
Oracle counsel are annoying and run a sloppy ship too |
|
Date: October 9th, 2020 6:22 PM Author: Comical Internet-worthy University Selfie So Google wrote its own compiler for the Java language. That's not "stealing code." Oracle is full of shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#41082664) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2021 12:10 PM Author: ruby office It’s tricky. Oracle did create tens of thousands of words for their language, and when you create a lot of words, that’s what people tend to think of as copyrightable. I’m glad SCOTUS can see how traditional methods of copyright need to be revised in light of how computers actually operate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#42230646) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2021 12:16 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction And the Court did not reverse the Fed Cir determination that it was copyrightable (which is good). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#42230700) |
|
Date: April 5th, 2021 10:05 AM Author: Saffron property FAIR USE
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Alito and CT dissent |
|
Date: April 5th, 2021 10:41 AM Author: elite puppy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#42223898) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2021 12:16 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction Gonna have to read this eventually (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#42230690) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2021 12:14 PM Author: ruby office Call me a sentimental ass, but I’ve long felt that we need to make all interfaces fair use. It is total horseshit and destructive to the US that first movers and/or market winners on trivial bullshit can just get some rent seeking monopoly. Now, the code underneath should absolutely be protected, but the way your program or hardware connects to other prices of the system should be legally open source and fair use. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#42230670) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2021 12:16 PM Author: Chocolate apoplectic theater stage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#42230702) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2021 12:18 PM Author: duck-like space dysfunction Well, it looks like the Court came close to doing just that (although you could always argue the facts are different in a different case). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4644868&forum_id=2#42230711) |