|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Re: [Hangout of NYLXS] Fair USe
|From hangout-bounces-at-nylxs.com Thu May 18 21:24:48 2017
Received: from www.mrbrklyn.com (www.mrbrklyn.com [188.8.131.52])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA80161313;
Thu, 18 May 2017 21:24:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 83DDF161311; Thu, 18 May 2017 21:24:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:24:45 -0400
From: Ruben Safir
To: Rick Moen
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Hangout of NYLXS] Fair USe
List-Id: NYLXS Tech Talk and Politics
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Well, maybe not doing that in the future might be a better idea. Dalvik
> didn't need to copy the SSO code at all, and if it hadn't, Google
> wouldn't be going back to District Court, again.
> Anyway, Ruben, I don't take seriously what you say on court cases and
> don't even spend more than about 60 seconds checking out what you say,
> because all you ever do is copy-and-paste from elsewhere and then
> editorialise. Which means you bring zero real understanding to the
> table for yourself or anyone else. So, read the goddamned caselaw for a
I don't need to study case law. I'm not a lawyer and I don't agree with
the fundemental legal foundation of copyright law. I don't want to
perpetrate it. I want to burn it,
You would make a bad doctor.
Google fucked up by copying parts of the Java code into their base.
That is my opinion. The court case itself will screw the public on
A) It is allowing for Oracle to lock up Java as a language
B) It is threatening fair use of programming languages
C) It depends on a fair use argument which, as I wrote before, is
historically manipulated and eventually eroded in every case.
As the EFF wrote:
Oracle v. Google
At issue in Oracle v. Google is whether Oracle can claim a copyright on
Java APIs and, if so, whether Google infringes these copyrights. When it
implemented the Android OS, Google wrote its own version of Java. But in
order to allow developers to write their own programs for Android,
Google's implementation used the same names, organization, and
functionality as the Java APIs. For non-developers out there, APIs
(Application Programming Interfaces) are, generally speaking,
specifications that allow programs to communicate with each other. So
when you read an article online, and click on the icon to share that
article via Twitter, for example, you are using a Twitter API that the
site=E2=80=99s developer got directly from Twitter.
In May 2012, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California
ruled that APIs are not subject to copyright. The court clearly
understood that ruling otherwise would have impermissibly=E2=80=94and
dangerously=E2=80=94allowed Oracle to tie up =E2=80=9Ca utilitarian and fun=
of symbols,=E2=80=9D which provides the basis for so much of the innovation=
collaboration we all rely on today. Simply, where =E2=80=9Cthere is only on=
to declare a given method functionality, [so that] everyone using that
function must write that specific line of code in the same way,=E2=80=9D th=
coding language cannot be subject to copyright.
Oracle appealed Judge Alsup's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit. On May 30, 2013, EFF filed an amicus brief on
behalf of many computer scientists asking the Federal Circuit to uphold
that ruling and hold that APIs should not be subject to copyright. On
May 9, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued a disastrous decision reversing
Judge Alsup and finding that the Java APIs are copyrightable, but
leaving open the possibility that Google might have a fair use defense.
On October 6, 2014, Google filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme
Court to review the Federal Circuit's decision. On November 7, 2014,
EFF filed an amicus brief on behalf of many computer scientists that
asked the Supreme Court to grant Google's petition for review, reverse
the Federal Circuit, and reinstate Judge Alsup's opinion. Unfortunately,
in June 2015 the Supreme Court denied Google's petition.
The case returned to the district court for a trial on Google's fair use
defense. Fortunately, in May 2016, a jury unanimously agreed that
Google's use of the Java APIs was fair use. Oracle has filed another
The court is a shitty place for the public to win copyright battles. =
Courts are dominated by monied interests and fail to protect the public =
What is needed is legistlative change, which unfortunately suffers much
the same problem as we saw in the google book scanning project. But if
you can make legistlative change you can swipe away all that corrupt
legal crap that you dig up. Nothing that you bring to court can do
Indeed, this is not "Christmas on 34th Street" and Santa would be
infringing on trademarks and copyrights anyway.
Hangout mailing list