6 ms·

EDIT: why am I being down voted? Oracle has a pretty strong case against Google. To address the issue of fair use and if APIs can be copyrightable: 1. Judge

EDIT: why am I being down voted? Oracle has a pretty strong case against Google. To address the issue of fair use and if APIs can be copyrightable: 1. Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs. On October 3, 1989, the Ninth Circuit held the following in Johnson Controls v. Phoenix Control Systems: "A computer program is made up of several different components, including the source and object code, the structure, sequence and/or organization of the program, the user interface, and the function, or purpose, of the program. Whether a particular component of a program is protected by a copyright depends on whether it qualifies as an 'expression' of an idea, rather than the idea itself." On to paragraph 13: "Here, the district court found that the structure, sequence and organization of the JC-5000S was expression, and thus subject to protection. [...] This issue will no doubt be revisited at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings we cannot say that the district court clearly erred." http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/886/1173/19079/ http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/886/... http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/oracle-v-google-cant-make-apis.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/oracle-v-google-cant-make... 2. the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

parfe 14y ago
Funny Mueller conveniently excises the text that does not support the case of, his employer, Oracle. 13. Here, the district court found that the structure, sequence and organization of the JC-5000S was expression, and thus subject to protection. The JC-5000S is a very sophisticated program, and each individual application is customized to the needs of the purchaser. This practice of adaptation is one indication that there may be room for individualized expression in the accomplishment of common functions. The district court's finding of expression is also supported by the special master's report. Regarding one particular point type, the master indicated that, although it is common for process control software packages to include provisions for collecting historical data, and using various integration and averaging schemes to do so, it is unusual to implement this function as a point type, as Johnson did. This finding also supports the view that some discretion and opportunity for creativity exist in the structure, and that the structure of the JC-5000S is expression, rather than an idea in itself. This issue will no doubt be revisited at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings we cannot say that the district court clearly erred. Copying APIs leaves no room for individualized expression. Don't be surprised Mueller misled you. You should expect it from him.
- yummysalad 14y ago
  I'm not a big fan of Mueller myself but so far he's been correct. The jury returned a partial verdict favoring Oracle. Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls decision. Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs. It all depends of Judge Alsup now.
  - parfe 14y ago
    Mueller was correct only because the jury had no other option on question 1A. The judge instructed the jury that APIs were copyrightable. He did this to prevent the certain appeal of his decision on APIs from forcing another jury trial which would rehash the same testimony. Mueller was "correct" because he didn't have to make a risky prediction on the jury trial. In fact, Mueller has been wrong, repeatedly. He predicted Google would settle. He expected the case to be resolved months ago. He gives that as a reason for hiding his employment with Oracle, a blatant conflict of interest while he offered expert commentary on the case. He predicted the jury would find against google's fair use defense for question 1B, then blames the judge for not issuing the correct instructions. He's basically a huge anti-google marketing campaign. Ask him how that Linux GPL infringement issue that was going to ruin the android marketplace has been going? Nowhere you say? edit: Here's some context, but I regret having to link to his garbage blog to provide it: Fake emergency ginned up by Mueller regarding distribution rights being revoked from Android vendors: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost... Fake and inaccurate licensing issue ginned by by Mueller regarding the "viral" GPL infecting[1] Angry Birds forcing Rovio to release the source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/03/googles-android-faces-serious-linux.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/03/googles-android-faces-ser... [1] Hint, GPL licensing does not work that way.
    - stock_toaster 14y ago
      I am curious that if apis are solidly found to not be copyrightable, would this have any impact on gpl3's 'anti tivo' exclusions and/or gpl vs lgpl linking exceptions? It would seem to me that providing an api compatible 'shim' layer would then not fall under copyright if apis are not copyrightable. Although linking is clearly, in my mind, the creation of a derived work. My understanding of the many facets of copyright law is not very extensive though, so enlightenment is definitely welcome.

parfe 14y ago

Funny Mueller conveniently excises the text that does not support the case of, his employer, Oracle. 13. Here, the district court found that the structure, sequence and organization of the JC-5000S was expression, and thus subject to protection. The JC-5000S is a very sophisticated program, and each individual application is customized to the needs of the purchaser. This practice of adaptation is one indication that there may be room for individualized expression in the accomplishment of common functions. The district court's finding of expression is also supported by the special master's report. Regarding one particular point type, the master indicated that, although it is common for process control software packages to include provisions for collecting historical data, and using various integration and averaging schemes to do so, it is unusual to implement this function as a point type, as Johnson did. This finding also supports the view that some discretion and opportunity for creativity exist in the structure, and that the structure of the JC-5000S is expression, rather than an idea in itself. This issue will no doubt be revisited at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings we cannot say that the district court clearly erred. Copying APIs leaves no room for individualized expression. Don't be surprised Mueller misled you. You should expect it from him.

yummysalad 14y ago
I'm not a big fan of Mueller myself but so far he's been correct. The jury returned a partial verdict favoring Oracle. Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls decision. Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs. It all depends of Judge Alsup now.
- parfe 14y ago
  Mueller was correct only because the jury had no other option on question 1A. The judge instructed the jury that APIs were copyrightable. He did this to prevent the certain appeal of his decision on APIs from forcing another jury trial which would rehash the same testimony. Mueller was "correct" because he didn't have to make a risky prediction on the jury trial. In fact, Mueller has been wrong, repeatedly. He predicted Google would settle. He expected the case to be resolved months ago. He gives that as a reason for hiding his employment with Oracle, a blatant conflict of interest while he offered expert commentary on the case. He predicted the jury would find against google's fair use defense for question 1B, then blames the judge for not issuing the correct instructions. He's basically a huge anti-google marketing campaign. Ask him how that Linux GPL infringement issue that was going to ruin the android marketplace has been going? Nowhere you say? edit: Here's some context, but I regret having to link to his garbage blog to provide it: Fake emergency ginned up by Mueller regarding distribution rights being revoked from Android vendors: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost-their-linux.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/most-android-vendors-lost... Fake and inaccurate licensing issue ginned by by Mueller regarding the "viral" GPL infecting[1] Angry Birds forcing Rovio to release the source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/03/googles-android-faces-serious-linux.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/03/googles-android-faces-ser... [1] Hint, GPL licensing does not work that way.
  - stock_toaster 14y ago
    I am curious that if apis are solidly found to not be copyrightable, would this have any impact on gpl3's 'anti tivo' exclusions and/or gpl vs lgpl linking exceptions? It would seem to me that providing an api compatible 'shim' layer would then not fall under copyright if apis are not copyrightable. Although linking is clearly, in my mind, the creation of a derived work. My understanding of the many facets of copyright law is not very extensive though, so enlightenment is definitely welcome.