7 ms·

The car's width is absolutely its interface with respect to roadway interoperability. We aren't talking about user interfaces here. This lawsuit does not invol

The car's width is absolutely its interface with respect to roadway interoperability. We aren't talking about user interfaces here. This lawsuit does not involve UX. We are talking about interfaces between functional components. The analogy is spot on.

mehrdadn 6y ago
The interoperability width is already set by the road... you're copying the road at that point, not the car. The lawsuit involves UX for a software framework. Which its API constitutes. The user happens to be a developer here and their usage is software development.
- throwaway373438 6y ago
  And this is why Google had to copy the interface -- otherwise their runtime would not operate with other existing products. As you can see given your example, the analogy is a perfect fit. Your argument that the copying is once-removed is unfortunately irrelevant to copyright law.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    You're saying a car that's 1 inch narrower somehow wouldn't fit the same roads?
    - throwaway373438 6y ago
      What does "1 inch narrower" mean to you, in the context of this analogy? Are you suggesting the interfaces have different names? Different sized arguments? None of those things would work. Besides, creating minor differences do not solve this problem as they would still be derivative works.
      - mehrdadn 6y ago
        > What does "1 inch narrower" mean to you, in the context of this analogy? Are you suggesting the interfaces have different names? Different sized arguments? Your question is exactly my point. I'm suggesting what I said earlier: >> I don't think that's a good analogy at all.
        throwaway373438 6y ago
        It sounds like the original analogy is apt, and your followup analogy isn't.
        mehrdadn 6y ago
        I wasn't the one who compared this with the width of a car and then got confused what a shorter width would even mean. But sure, if you say so.
        throwaway373438 6y ago
        Program identifiers use exact matches. The analogy works fine understanding this context. It's possible to extend any analogy in a way that doesn't make sense, which is what you've done. It seems like your complaint may be that you simply don't like, or perhaps don't understand, analogies in general.

mehrdadn 6y ago

The interoperability width is already set by the road... you're copying the road at that point, not the car. The lawsuit involves UX for a software framework. Which its API constitutes. The user happens to be a developer here and their usage is software development.

throwaway373438 6y ago
And this is why Google had to copy the interface -- otherwise their runtime would not operate with other existing products. As you can see given your example, the analogy is a perfect fit. Your argument that the copying is once-removed is unfortunately irrelevant to copyright law.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  You're saying a car that's 1 inch narrower somehow wouldn't fit the same roads?
  - throwaway373438 6y ago
    What does "1 inch narrower" mean to you, in the context of this analogy? Are you suggesting the interfaces have different names? Different sized arguments? None of those things would work. Besides, creating minor differences do not solve this problem as they would still be derivative works.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      > What does "1 inch narrower" mean to you, in the context of this analogy? Are you suggesting the interfaces have different names? Different sized arguments? Your question is exactly my point. I'm suggesting what I said earlier: >> I don't think that's a good analogy at all.
      - throwaway373438 6y ago
        It sounds like the original analogy is apt, and your followup analogy isn't.
        mehrdadn 6y ago
        I wasn't the one who compared this with the width of a car and then got confused what a shorter width would even mean. But sure, if you say so.
        throwaway373438 6y ago
        Program identifiers use exact matches. The analogy works fine understanding this context. It's possible to extend any analogy in a way that doesn't make sense, which is what you've done. It seems like your complaint may be that you simply don't like, or perhaps don't understand, analogies in general.