|
hobbesmaster posted:It would be this trivial to get around a structure sequence and organization claim. In other words, why 37 APIs? Why not 45 or 15? Because that would break interoperability.
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Because that would break interoperability. Like having dex files instead of jars?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Like having dex files instead of jars? The same code still runs. Needing a new compiler for a new platform isn't new. I'll grant it breaks the culture of Java, but WORA was always more of a marketing gimmick than reality.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
For any lawyers in the crowd: couldn't Google have avoided this by agreeing to use the OpenJDK when it became available? My understanding is that the OpenJDK licenses are free and without field of use restriction as long as you pass the TCK (which is also provided for free and with no field of use restrictions with the OpenJDK) and you keep a majority of the OpenJDK code. Granted, they'd have to implement the entirety of Java, which they don't want to do, but wouldn't it have been more cost-effective to do that than go through this lawsuit?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Well up until this decision, what they did was perfectly fine and is common in software.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
duz posted:Well up until this decision, what they did was perfectly fine and is common in software. And even after this decision, may still be perfectly fine. The decision was that APIs are copyrightable, not that you can't reimplement them for interoperability reasons. That question is still open.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
dpbjinc posted:For any lawyers in the crowd: couldn't Google have avoided this by agreeing to use the OpenJDK when it became available? My understanding is that the OpenJDK licenses are free and without field of use restriction as long as you pass the TCK (which is also provided for free and with no field of use restrictions with the OpenJDK) and you keep a majority of the OpenJDK code. Granted, they'd have to implement the entirety of Java, which they don't want to do, but wouldn't it have been more cost-effective to do that than go through this lawsuit? I'm pretty sure that there's a specific TCK licensing restriction effectively prohibiting its use on mobile devices.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:I'm pretty sure that there's a specific TCK licensing restriction effectively prohibiting its use on mobile devices. There is, I believe, but I think that only matters if you wanted to call something Java(tm), which I'm pretty sure Google doesn't. Google made some technical decisions in Dalvik that don't match OpenJDK's, in addition to licensing. I don't know how helpful OpenJDK would have actually been for them.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And even after this decision, may still be perfectly fine. The decision was that APIs are copyrightable, not that you can't reimplement them for interoperability reasons. That question is still open. Isn't the whole point of this lawsuit to answer that question? The claim isn't that google copied java's implementation; just the API.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Chuu posted:Isn't the whole point of this lawsuit to answer that question? The claim isn't that google copied java's implementation; just the API. Yes, that's the point of the lawsuit. But the Fed Cir decision was just "yes, APIs can be copyrighted," not "and you can't copy them for reimplementation purposes under fair use or a similar principle."
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Chuu posted:Isn't the whole point of this lawsuit to answer that question? The claim isn't that google copied java's implementation; just the API. I can't comprehend this at all. The whole point of an API is that it just describes the way in which programs should interact with the VM/runtime environment/OS/hardware they run on. How could you program at all without copying the API? Is it just that they're angry that Android isn't 100% Java? Would this lawsuit have been moot if Android was just an embedded Linux distro with a JVM on it?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Is there any source that breaks down SC (and other court) decisions to look for correlations? Looking at how Justices vote with each other, influence of amici, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Is there any source that breaks down SC (and other court) decisions to look for correlations? Looking at how Justices vote with each other, influence of amici, etc. Like the SCOTUS Blog stat pack?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Like the SCOTUS Blog stat pack? Somewhat, but more in depth.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Well there's the full stat pack if you click through the link near the top of the page. That page I linked to is just a summary. They have advocate stats, but I don't think they do for amici.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Wow. Nobody had any thoughts about the huge news that came out of the Court today? Scalia joined an opinion in full, even when that opinion used legislative history! Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. posted:The federal limitations prescription governing copyright suits serves two purposes: (1) to render uniform and certain the time within which copyright claims could be pursued; and (2) to prevent the forum shopping invited by disparate state limitations periods, which ranged from one to eight years. Senate Report 2; see H. R. Rep. No. 2419, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1956). To comprehend how the Copyright Act’s limitations period works, one must understand when a copyright infringement claim accrues.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
..translation for those of us less well-versed in copyright lingo? 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
No more dicking around and bringing a copyright suit in the state with the longest possible statute of limitations.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
The only important part of that quote are the citations to the House and Senate Reports. These documents are referred to as part of the "legislative history" of a statute, which includes all sorts of materials about the hows and why a statute is passed. Scalia is a huge fan of textualism when it comes to issues of statutory interpretation. Textualism resolves statutory interpretation issues by simply looking to the text of the statute (while also using various canons of construction for when the statutory text is less than clear). What textualism does not do, however, is resort to looking to the legislative history of a statute -- a few of the reasons being that the legislative history can be manipulated by individual legislators, and the legislative history wasn't what was voted on by both chambers and signed into law. This is why Scalia, vowed textualist that he is, frequently will join opinions except for certain portions that refer to the legislative history relating to a particular statute. Here, he did not do so -- that is to say, he joined the opinion in full, including the portion of the opinion that embraced the use of legislative history (albeit for a minor point). (Not really huge news. I was making a joke.) Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 20:12 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
I thought Scalia is a strong believer in legislative ahistory...like for example imagining that Congress didn't actually want to pass the VRA, they just voted for it anyway or they would have been tarred as racists and booted out in the next election. Therefore Congress' true intent was not to pass it...
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I thought Scalia is a strong believer in legislative ahistory...like for example imagining that Congress didn't actually want to pass the VRA, they just voted for it anyway or they would have been tarred as racists and booted out in the next election. Therefore Congress' true intent was not to pass it... That wasn't in the final opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Well there's the full stat pack if you click through the link near the top of the page. That page I linked to is just a summary. They have advocate stats, but I don't think they do for amici. I'm interested in messing with a lot of things, and the whole stat pack is interesting but not complete. I'm currently writing a script to try to parse opinion PDFs and docket pages 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I'm interested in messing with a lot of things, and the whole stat pack is interesting but not complete. I'm currently writing a script to try to parse opinion PDFs and docket pages If it seems viable after some testing, do keep us updated. A systematization like what you describe could become A Big Deal from an analysis standpoint.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If it seems viable after some testing, do keep us updated. A systematization like what you describe could become A Big Deal from an analysis standpoint. I mean, there aren't really that many opinions (and there's a lot of data already out there), so it doesn't quite fall into Big Data. I am curious what info you're interested in that SCOTUSBlog isn't reporting, though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Holder calls Roberts out:quote:"Chief Justice John Roberts has argued that the path to ending racial discrimination is to give less consideration to the issue of race altogether. This presupposes that racial discrimination is at a sufficiently low ebb that it doesn’t need to be actively confronted," Holder said, speaking at the historically black Morgan State University. "In its most obvious forms, it might be. But discrimination does not always come in the form of a hateful epithet or a Jim Crow-like statute. And so we must continue to take account of racial inequality, especially in its less obvious forms, and actively discuss ways to combat it." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/eric-holder-john-roberts-race
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I mean, there aren't really that many opinions (and there's a lot of data already out there), so it doesn't quite fall into Big Data. Amici mostly, but also attempting to look at Justice splits by topic. Like that study about 1A decisions depending on the politics of the speaker.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Amici mostly, but also attempting to look at Justice splits by topic. Like that study about 1A decisions depending on the politics of the speaker. I think that the latter is very much a useful thing, but hard to do via parsing. Constitutional law concepts especially get thrown around in cases that aren't, and administrative law decisions may be in theory about a specific substantive topic but really be about procedural issues. Automated scraping is probably the wrong approach, basically - this is something where you've got 75-100 data points per year but the data points are complex in and of themselves. You're probably better off doing a manual coding approach.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a pretty nasty NLP problem. Maybe you can parse summaries?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Amici mostly, but also attempting to look at Justice splits by topic. Like that study about 1A decisions depending on the politics of the speaker. I remember him complaining greatly about amicus briefs, saying that more and more amici give information and arguments already included in the parties' briefs and nothing new and; therefore, not worth the time.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Holder calls Roberts out: Cant find the NYT article from my phone but considering the DOJ keeps advising Obama to not sign most nonviolent drug offenders appeals for pardon, Holder is calling out himself. He can't seriously be that un-self aware.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 15:38
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Cant find the NYT article from my phone but considering the DOJ keeps advising Obama to not sign most nonviolent drug offenders appeals for pardon, Holder is calling out himself. He can't seriously be that un-self aware. He's not calling out himself at all. The DoJ has specific rules about when they recommend pardons and they're following those rules. If the President should do something generally for non-violent drug offenders still in prison it would be done outside that process - and if the President wants to change the DoJ process that's his perogative, not Holder's. edit: specifically, the clemency process rather than the pardon process: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/us/politics/white-house-seeks-drug-clemency-candidates.html?_r=0 evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:58 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Yep, my bad. I was thinking of this article: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-plans-clemency-for-hundreds-of-drug-offenders--162714911.html Now to be fair, the office of the pardon attorney may not be on Holder's #1 list to check on every day. In Holder's offense, it apparently isn't because they gave a highly influential thumbs down on many of the pleas that did reach Obama. If Holder was involved... either way he's responsible and doing way more harm than Roberts. Holder said in a memo he wanted to do something about this but there's been no results so far so I don't buy a word of it. The article says things might improve but I'm not holding my breath. That doesn't excuse politicking on the court, it's just that of all possible critics, the head of the justice system as it exists today is just rich with irony.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
So the scotusblog chart of pending cases and opinion authors means that Roberts is probably the author of Bond v. United States right?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:That wasn't in the final opinion. Neither was his Jack Bauer torture fantasy, but I'm going to hold bullshit he says to justify his horrible views and inconsistent philosophy against him even if he doesn't actually include them all in an opinion. VVVVV How the legislature came up with the preclearance formula was actually central to the case. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Shelby County v. Holder was not a statutory interpretation case, but a constitutional law case, and therefore any Justice's adherence (or lack thereof) to textualism was irrelevant. edit: VitalSigns posted:VVVVV Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 21:52 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
I don't understand the relevancy of that. I know it's not statutory interpretation because the statute was clear. Are you saying that Scalia's conjecture about the frame-of-mind of the legislators did not betray his willingness to seize on any rationale, no matter how flimsy or contradictory, just to get the outcome he wants? That was his reason for dismissing all of the evidence congress looked at showing that voter suppression is still a problem, if I'm remembering the oral arguments right.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Hurles is gonna die in prison before being executed at this rate.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Statutory interpretation cases are about what a statute means, and how the statute applies (or does not apply) to a given set of facts. In statutory interpretation cases, there are various theories of jurisprudence that different jurists champion. Textualism is one (Scalia being the most well known proponent). Purposivism/Intentionalism is another (and generally seen as the main competitor of textualism). In contrast, constitutional law cases are about whether a certain "thing" (be it a government act, or a statute) passes constitutional muster. That is, whether the U.S. Constitution allows or prohibits that thing. In constitutional law cases, the theories of jurisprudence that apply to statutory interpretation are not applicable.* The point being, there isn't a "gotcha" moment if Scalia looks beyond the text of a statute when assessing its constitutionality -- that is, when Scalia looks beyond the text of a statute in a constitutional law case. He isn't betraying his textualism principles in those cases, because textualism is inapplicable. That responds to your initial assertion that you thought Scalia was a strong believer in legislative history. If your new point is something about Scalia going for results instead of applying consistent legal principles, that's fine. It's an oft repeated statement, but frequently supported by only his horrible Commerce Clause switcheroo. Notably, that statement is not supported by the fact that Scalia is a textualist, but considered what the legislators may have thought when passing a statute in a constitutional law case. *There are, of course, some theories in constitutional law cases that closely resemble theories utilized in statutory interpretation cases. For example, originalism and textualism are closely aligned. But the focus of each is different, in light of the type of case at hand: originalism is concerned with the text of the Constitution (and what those who originally passed the relevant portion thought, which can require looking to secondary sources), whereas textualism is concerned with the text of the relevant statute (and believing that the intent of those who passed the law is embodied in the text itself). Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 01:18 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
I don't know that it was even a real switcheroo. Raich was awful, but there's certainly a gulf between the economic activity of growing marijuana and Lopez/Morrison.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
In re: the author of Bond, whoever was running the SCOTUSBLog live blog a week or two ago was asked that question and (s)he guessed Roberts. I read elsewhere that Roberts is probably the likely author in light of Kennedy authoring Greece.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:30
|
|