|
|
|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it.
|
| Oracle loses |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf I find it interesting to read how intelligent people try to understand nuanced technical complexities of a topic that they do not have any expertise in. I dislike the analogies that are used throughout this case but ultimately I agree with the majority's take on the case. There were some interesting points made. One of my favorites was that they didn't give Oracle any value points for vendor lock in. That is if a developer has spent 20 years learning your language, that is his value. You didn't create that value and if someone else like Google uses that to their benefit you can't claim damages. Well of course it's beneficial to Google, but it's also beneficial to the thousands of people who took it upon themselves to learn something and become an expert in it out of their own labor. And then also I thought it was funny that they basically told Oracle that they sucked and even if Google hadn't used Java or did anything in the mobile space that Oracle was never going to be successful there anyway by their own admission. |
|
SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
 |
That document convinced me that I don't understand copyright. I find the argument made by Thomas that the public API being a separate copyrightable element from the rest of the source code convincing, meaning that the 0.4 percent number makes no sense and I don't see how copying the totality of the API could be fair use. Don't get me wrong, I like the decision for its meta-level, I just don't understand the reasoning. Breyer is evidently a copyright lawyer with many years of experience, so clearly the error is in my understanding of copyright. "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18 |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
The question is of fair use. I can copy anything if it falls under fair use. The Supreme Court did not make any ruling regarding what is copyrightable. They simply ruled that Google's use was fair use, so whether or not it was copyrightable is irrelevant. |
|
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
 |
Matthew Leverton said: The Supreme Court did not make any ruling regarding what is copyrightable. They simply ruled that Google's use was fair use, so whether or not it was copyrightable is irrelevant. Imagine if Google wasn't a US company.
|
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
What would happen? Foreign companies and entities reimplement APIs published by American companies without incident. I think this case is much more about Oracle than Google. |
|
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
Well, I certainly know too little to argue.
|
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
I wouldn't say that Oracle's case was without merit. The organization of their API does constitute meaningful value. We aren't talking about one trivial max function. But ultimately the court didn't feel like Google's use infringed on Oracle's rights due to their analysis of the four key areas when determining fair use. Basically the court ruled that Oracle wasn't harmed, that Google made a sufficiently different thing that Oracle wasn't doing (optimizing for mobile) and that there was clear public benefit. Internationally, sure there might have been a different outcome if the company in question was Chinese specifically. Maybe there would have been import restrictions. |
|
|
