Microsoft, IBM and others back Google in high-stakes Supreme Court copyright case
-
A broad group of tech firms including Microsoft Corp. has thrown its support behind Google LLC in its high-stake copyright dispute with Oracle Corp., which will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this year.
"If you go to war, a great empire will perish"
-
A broad group of tech firms including Microsoft Corp. has thrown its support behind Google LLC in its high-stake copyright dispute with Oracle Corp., which will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this year.
"If you go to war, a great empire will perish"
They will probably lose, but they shouldn't. The API is not the product -- it's not even a product (when was the last time you saw a boxed API on the shelf of a computer shop?) If companies don't want programmers to use their products at the programmatic level, they shouldn't provide public classes/functions at all, let alone in an API. But once you provide such public classes/functions, trying to keep them private is completely contrary to their intended function. And allowing developers to use the same keywords/names and expect the same behaviour across a range of different products not only makes sense, but it makes the only sense. What they're doing is tantamount to trying to copyright the button, or the combobox.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
They will probably lose, but they shouldn't. The API is not the product -- it's not even a product (when was the last time you saw a boxed API on the shelf of a computer shop?) If companies don't want programmers to use their products at the programmatic level, they shouldn't provide public classes/functions at all, let alone in an API. But once you provide such public classes/functions, trying to keep them private is completely contrary to their intended function. And allowing developers to use the same keywords/names and expect the same behaviour across a range of different products not only makes sense, but it makes the only sense. What they're doing is tantamount to trying to copyright the button, or the combobox.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
What they're doing is tantamount to trying to copyright the button, or the combobox.
IIRC someone patented "slide the finger to unblock" and won a related process. So no wonder that they now try to copyright. Doing things good and having customers / developers as first priority (or even the first 5) is long gone :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
What they're doing is tantamount to trying to copyright the button, or the combobox.
IIRC someone patented "slide the finger to unblock" and won a related process. So no wonder that they now try to copyright. Doing things good and having customers / developers as first priority (or even the first 5) is long gone :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
That was apple, and android had to not use it, any more. Unfortunately for apple, everyone preferred the method that android replaced it with -- so apple copied that.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
A broad group of tech firms including Microsoft Corp. has thrown its support behind Google LLC in its high-stake copyright dispute with Oracle Corp., which will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this year.
"If you go to war, a great empire will perish"
-
I am surprised to see Microsoft on that list. I wonder what they'll think when someone copies the Win32 API.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
They already have (at least in part): Borland's 32-bit DOS extender implemented a subset of the Win32 API. Phar Lap's 32-bit DOS extender ditto wine (on Linux :wtf:) must reimplement much of the Win32 API. And IIRC, there is some (not very popular) project to produce a clone of Windows NT (at the API level). To the best of my knowledge, none of those have been sued by Microsoft. Microsoft have done many stupid (IMO) things, but they are not the worst players in their field.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
That was apple, and android had to not use it, any more. Unfortunately for apple, everyone preferred the method that android replaced it with -- so apple copied that.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Unfortunately for apple, everyone preferred the method that android replaced it with -- so apple copied that.
And they didn't get sued? Here you have... the proof that google is not that evil [/sarcasm]
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Unfortunately for apple, everyone preferred the method that android replaced it with -- so apple copied that.
And they didn't get sued? Here you have... the proof that google is not that evil [/sarcasm]
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Or they're just not completely stupid. Having common interface elements, etc, benefits everyone; ridiculous lawsuits end up not even benefitting the plaintiff.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
They will probably lose, but they shouldn't. The API is not the product -- it's not even a product (when was the last time you saw a boxed API on the shelf of a computer shop?) If companies don't want programmers to use their products at the programmatic level, they shouldn't provide public classes/functions at all, let alone in an API. But once you provide such public classes/functions, trying to keep them private is completely contrary to their intended function. And allowing developers to use the same keywords/names and expect the same behaviour across a range of different products not only makes sense, but it makes the only sense. What they're doing is tantamount to trying to copyright the button, or the combobox.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
In my world of analogies: Oracle is an automobile manufacturer. They make a car known as Java Android is another car; which is made by Google. And the API... It is road that both kinds of cars can drive on
Director of Transmogrification Services Shinobi of Query Language Master of Yoda Conditional
-
In my world of analogies: Oracle is an automobile manufacturer. They make a car known as Java Android is another car; which is made by Google. And the API... It is road that both kinds of cars can drive on
Director of Transmogrification Services Shinobi of Query Language Master of Yoda Conditional
Works for me.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!