|
So what's the likelihood NC's bathroom law bullshit makes it to SCOTUS? It should be a slam dunk, but it looks to me as a lay person that Title IX allows for some judicial review. Is there a shithead justice somewhere in the chain that could make it go to SCOTUS?
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
ErIog posted:So what's the likelihood NC's bathroom law bullshit makes it to SCOTUS? It should be a slam dunk, but it looks to me as a lay person that Title IX allows for some judicial review. Is there a shithead justice somewhere in the chain that could make it go to SCOTUS? Since the NC AG already said "gently caress this", that may lead to outside groups stepping in to defend it. What is the precedential status of the Prop 8 defense standing?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
ErIog posted:So what's the likelihood NC's bathroom law bullshit makes it to SCOTUS? It should be a slam dunk, but it looks to me as a lay person that Title IX allows for some judicial review. Is there a shithead justice somewhere in the chain that could make it go to SCOTUS? Maybe upper Federal Courts, but judicial precedent for this sort of poo poo is already set and it's not in North Carolina's favour.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Kalman posted:the question was whether the organization of the language as a whole was It was whether the way the standard library is organized was. The language specification wasn't at issue, to my knowledge. It does relate to the language because, in Java, as in many other languages, you have to declare that you're using things, even from the standard library, and those declarations are based on the location of what you're using within the library. So, if nobody else can copy the way the Java standard library is organized, nobody else can make an implementation of the standard library that will work at all with existing Java code. I guess you could make a standard library with a predictable change that a nonstandard compiler could 'correct for', maybe? IDK - the court would probably smack that down, too.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
duz posted:Who is going from Oracle to NoSQL and how can I make sure to not rely on them for anything important? Had a lot of  here, but not really the thread for it. I'll just say that their biggest long term worries would probably be there is little reason for anyone to use Oracle for new projects these days given their licensing model, how good their competitors have gotten at enterprise support, and the fact a lot of NoSQL databases are actually better fits for projects people would have just throw Oracle at 10+ years ago. Not having a licensing model compatible with lean development is also an issue even at Fortune 100 companies these days.That doesn't include how many firms are actively trying to move off of Oracle onto something like Postgres due to the ridiculous TCO of even the smallest Oracle setups. Or even MSSQL Server. Chuu fucked around with this message at 05:48 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Apropos nothing, what's the chance of Raich v. Gonzalez ever being overturned? Any cases in the pipeline that could possibly bring its precedent up?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:57
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Chuu posted:Had a lot of This. Oracle turned into the very companies it was replacing when they entered the market. And now they are being replaced in turn, they got taken over by MBAs and Investors versus innovators.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Apropos nothing, what's the chance of Gonzalez v. Raich ever being overturned? Any cases in the pipeline that could possibly bring its precedent up? Extremely unlikely. It was 6-3 on very solid legal grounds, independent of whatever one's opinion of pot is. A reversal would have much broader ramifications than pot regulation- it could heavily undermine most federal regulatory systems.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:It was whether the way the standard library is organized was. The language specification wasn't at issue, to my knowledge. It does relate to the language because, in Java, as in many other languages, you have to declare that you're using things, even from the standard library, and those declarations are based on the location of what you're using within the library. So, if nobody else can copy the way the Java standard library is organized, nobody else can make an implementation of the standard library that will work at all with existing Java code. It probably won't change anything legally since the Federal Circuit just loves turning software development into a legal minefield for the sake of making nulle terre sans seigneur the foundational principle of intellectual property.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:It probably won't change anything legally since the Federal Circuit just loves turning software development into a legal minefield for the sake of making nulle terre sans seigneur the foundational principle of intellectual property. I googled that big Latin phrase and I can't tell what you're getting at.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
Basically it means they assume that if it exists someone must own it. The CAFC seems pretty adverse to the idea that any particular category of knowledge or work would belong to the public.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I googled that big Latin phrase and I can't tell what you're getting at. Oops.  I was talking with someone about feudalism for a D&D campaign before posting that and got that mixed up with terra nullius based on the translation which is a related concept although it was probably a dumb reference either way. One means "no land without a ruler" in French, while the other is Latin for "nobody's land" although neither has much current legal use outside of literal Buttfuck Egypt, which the Egyptian government claims is actually Buttfuck Sudan and vice versa. I was using it to reference the idea that all land somehow needs to be owned and controlled by someone like nature abhors a legal vacuum.Regarding the Federal Circuit, it's taken a very expansive view of what ideas deserve legal protection in a way that seems like they want it to apply to absolutely everything drat the consequences. There's no remotely plausible policy justification for treating the same thing in one programming language as mere facts while treating the same thing in a different language as inherently creative. The only conclusion I can draw is that they want to treat them the same but they could only really stretch the logic to apply to Java. Otherwise they would have said that Java works the same way that C does which is the way everybody in the software industry has assumed it works.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Oh my god I can't imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone got close to credibly claiming copyright on the C standard library  I don't see how their decision doesn't set precedent for claiming copyright on any library in any language that's in any way structured, which is most of them I can think of. PHP being the notable exception, because it's a loving dumpster fire of poor design.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Oh my god I can't imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone got close to credibly claiming copyright on the C standard library P. sure that ISO/IEC/ANSI owns the copyright to the C standard library, though they are not particular dicks about it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Can we get a Latin legal concept that means "old rear end judges who can barely work a web browser shouldn't be setting legal precedent regarding computer programming"?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:P. sure that ISO/IEC/ANSI owns the copyright to the C standard library, though they are not particular dicks about it. Whoever owns the remains of Bell Labs might be able to make a bunch of lawyers even wealthier trying to prove otherwise 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Whoever owns the remains of Bell Labs might be able to make a bunch of lawyers even wealthier trying to prove otherwise Well that would be Nokia (and I'm not sure why you said remains, Bell Labs is still active to this day) and probably not, since they were the ones who started the process to organize it into a standardized language and relinquished it to ANSI and later ISO working groups. Java never left Sun's control.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Well that would be Nokia (and I'm not sure why you said remains, Bell Labs is still active to this day) and probably not, since they were the ones who started the process to organize it into a standardized language and relinquished it to ANSI and later ISO working groups. Because I thought it'd been closed down in the aftermath of one of the telecom mergers and didn't bother checking, heh
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Java never left Sun's control. Except Sun specifically highlighted that they were never going to legally enforce any sort of copyright, and almost all the code was made FOSS which is where Oracle is going to have a difficult time in appeal.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Edited out more software stuff that probably belongs in a different thread.
Chuu fucked around with this message at 15:32 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Apropos nothing, what's the chance of Raich v. Gonzalez ever being overturned? Any cases in the pipeline that could possibly bring its precedent up? Zero. Raich v. Gonzalez was an attempt to turn conservative legal ideology against itself - conservative legal ideology opposes the use of the commerce clause to form the basis of federal legislation that's not directly commercial. However, Scalia invented a new legal theorem which is "except for pot". Alito would probably join in supporting the "except for pot" exception, and whoever Scalia's replacement is - unless the trumpenreich happens - is likely to reject the limitation on the commerce clause altogether. Better off hoping for legislative repeal (which is getting more and more likely to happen).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:P. sure that ISO/IEC/ANSI owns the copyright to the C standard library, though they are not particular dicks about it. The C standard library describes the behavior of several different implementations for different platforms owned by different entities and licensed under different terms. So if you use C on Windows it's either Microsoft's or whatever comes with Cygwin. Linux it's some flavor of GNU. Mac it's BSD. Android it's Bionic, and so forth. The standards organizations produce documents describing how to create a conforming implementation but they don't really own anything related to the implementations themselves. As far as ownership of the original Bell Labs C library implementation, I believe that's currently owned by Novell after the whole SCO saga although it's more of a historic curiosity at this point than anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Is it possible that someone on the side against the NC law might also push to bring this to the Supreme Court in the hopes of, say, giving Kennedy a chance to define sexuality and gender expression a protected class?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Is it possible that someone on the side against the NC law might also push to bring this to the Supreme Court in the hopes of, say, giving Kennedy a chance to define sexuality and gender expression a protected class? No. That argument won't be raised at the trial court because it's an open and shut case of "what does federal law ban" and so there's no need to get into constitutional arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Javid posted:Can we get a Latin legal concept that means "old rear end judges who can barely work a web browser shouldn't be setting legal precedent regarding computer programming"? "Mandatory retirement age"?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:The C standard library describes the behavior of several different implementations for different platforms owned by different entities and licensed under different terms. So if you use C on Windows it's either Microsoft's or whatever comes with Cygwin. Linux it's some flavor of GNU. Mac it's BSD. Android it's Bionic, and so forth. The standards organizations produce documents describing how to create a conforming implementation but they don't really own anything related to the implementations themselves. As far as ownership of the original Bell Labs C library implementation, I believe that's currently owned by Novell after the whole SCO saga although it's more of a historic curiosity at this point than anything else. That's all true, but it's not what is at issue with the Google/Oracle suit. Nobody disputes that Oracle owns the Hotspot JVM implementation, and that Google owns Dalvik and ART. The issue here is whether it's possible to copyright a collection of facts like "there is a function called strcpy, which takes two char pointer arguments, copies the second one to the first one, and returns a char pointer to the destination," or, "there is a really horrible calendaring system organized under java.util.Date". This is completely independent of the actual implementation or substantial documentation - it's just about the way the methods, method signatures, object hierarchy, and so forth are defined and structured.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
And it's been unarguably true that collections of organized facts are copyrightable for a long time as a collection, which is why the ruling wasn't actually surprising. The "sky is on fire" bullshit is coming from people who aren't understanding that the actual impact is basically zero on anyone who isn't reimplementing a language and its libraries. And even there, the obligation is the same as it ever was - do it with a clean room RE effort. (Which typically starts by not hiring people who used to work for the rightsholder to lead your effort.)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I can't remember - were we discussing the Klingon copyright case here or in another thread? If here, the complaint unsurprisingly survived the motion to dismiss. Judge Klausner did not specifically reach whether Klingon was copyrightable as of yet. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-refuses-dismiss-lawsuit-crowdfunded-892414 quote:Although the Court declines to address whether Plaintiffs' Claims will prosper at this time, the Court does find Plaintiffs' Claims will live long enough to survive Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And it's been unarguably true that collections of organized facts are copyrightable for a long time as a collection, which is why the ruling wasn't actually surprising. *So long as choices as to selection and arrangement of such facts are "made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity", and with the understanding that "[o]thers may copy the underlying facts from the publication."
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. That argument won't be raised at the trial court because it's an open and shut case of "what does federal law ban" and so there's no need to get into constitutional arguments. I kind of like that this is thus a legal argument so bad that it cannot even be taken down in a way that will make better things happen.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
More news from the early 90's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t865o_bkaSI Anita Hill in 1994 with bonus Bork!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
ulmont posted:*So long as choices as to selection and arrangement of such facts are "made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity", and with the understanding that "[o]thers may copy the underlying facts from the publication." Right. You can copy the underlying facts in Java's libraries - you just can't copy the overall structure and sequence and organization of the libraries. That's what the ruling was. Google did the latter. I think a lot of people are confusing the ruling ("the structure, sequence, and organization of a set of APIs can be copyrighted") for the shorthand ("APIs are copyrightable!"), and it's leading to bad predictions of effects, like developers being worried they'll be sued for developing using the APIs a language presents.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right. You can copy the underlying facts in Java's libraries - you just can't copy the overall structure and sequence and organization of the libraries. That's what the ruling was. Look, what you're saying may be good law; I am not qualified to comments; but technically it's complete gibberish: structure and organization of things are part of the API. (There is no sequence).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Look, what you're saying may be good law; I am not qualified to comments; but technically it's complete gibberish: structure and organization of things are part of the API. Maybe I'm being unclear. You can't copyright individual API calls. You can copyright the structure and organization of the API as a whole. (I frequently see API used to refer both to the entirety and to individual calls.) Also, there's a sequence in implementations of APIs, which is literally the order the component calls are written into the file in.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right. You can copy the underlying facts in Java's libraries - you just can't copy the overall structure and sequence and organization of the libraries. That's what the ruling was. If Google did this for years and Sun was fine with it, but now Oracle's not fine with it after buying Sun I don't see how Oracle can go "oh hey we're no longer cool with this and going back in time to make it uncool forever" and think they're owed anything for that period.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Maybe I'm being unclear. You can't copyright individual API calls. You can copyright the structure and organization of the API as a whole. (I frequently see API used to refer both to the entirety and to individual calls.) Except its a really bad idea, because a lot of APIs are implemented as is because they won't work any other way, even if you clean lab the whole thing. What you are doing is putting a massive overhead on developers now because of an arbitrary argument. APIs are offered as APIs to fit puzzle piece into a module to facilitate a program, if we start copyrighting APIs it will set a very bad precedent. Specifically, nobody will be able to re-use an API packaged without worrying about whether someone will take them to court for an arbitrary package that allows their code to complete its function. Its asinine. The entire idea of built APIs was to take the work out of re-writing an entire system of functionality for developers, now you are basically telling developers they much develop the ENTIRE THING from scratch or risk lawsuit. What's worse, is many of these methods and calls only work one way, you can't re-write them any other way other than maybe changing the order, but for most of them, the order of execution in the individual calls matters. For instance, my team develops on app built on Spring, we re-used their APIs for our program, we are not expected to re-make Spring's API functionality from scratch. If we had to, it would add years to development time and basically make writing the program financially unlikely. The entire point of Java being an Open Source system was to avoid the entire 'Who owns what' argument. Oracle just doesn't like that it can't milk the profits from a project. The best example of this is: I want you to write a paper using the English language, but I own half the words and you cannot use them so you need to re-define those words so they don't violate my copyright. They also cannot be used in their standard format grammar wise, even though they will only really work in that order with that defined meaning. But we're open source, fair use etc. What's the point in Java being Open Source with their APIs if you are expected to re-write the APIs on every use? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:49 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Look, what you're saying may be good law; I am not qualified to comments; but technically it's complete gibberish: structure and organization of things are part of the API. So you're the guy who just adds ever new function declaration at the end of the header, no matter where it would logically go.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except its a really bad idea, because a lot of APIs are implemented as is because they won't work any other way, even if you clean lab the whole thing. ... No? Because how does using an API provided by the API developer at all implicate copying the structure, sequence, and organization of the entire set of APIs? The ruling doesn't mean "writing a program that uses some APIs provided by someone else" infringes. It means that (unclean) reimplementations of entire APIs are at risk, which is a pretty limited part of the world. The only time you have to reimplement from scratch is when you are trying to reimplement the entire system in the first place. The circumstances you're worried about aren't realistic and are basically just people who don't understand the ruling (or have a motive to willfully misunderstand, like EFF) crying about the sky falling. There are some people who might have genuine worries: Mono, Wine, etc. Developers writing code that uses some Java or C or Windows API calls? Not so much. I'll leave off with a direct quote from the initial ruling: "All agree that Google was and remains free to use the Java language itself." Evil Fluffy posted:If Google did this for years and Sun was fine with it, but now Oracle's not fine with it after buying Sun I don't see how Oracle can go "oh hey we're no longer cool with this and going back in time to make it uncool forever" and think they're owed anything for that period. The doctrine you're referring to is called laches. It generally requires a significant and unreasonable period of time between the time the accuser knew of the infringement and the time they filed suit. Here, infringement at earliest started in 2007 (Android platform release). Oracle sued in 2010. That's within the 3 year statute of limitations on copyright damages and thus presumptively a reasonable amount of time. They can only recover damages within the three years prior to filing the suit anyway, not forever (though that's basically all of Android ever because they filed in 2010.) (And Sun wasn't "fine with it"; they tried to get Google to pay for a license.)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Kalman posted:... No? Because how does using an API provided by the API developer at all implicate copying the structure, sequence, and organization of the entire set of APIs? The EFF isn't an uninformed group. They have valid reason to be concerned, and I know plenty of people in the devlopment world who are very concerned about this. These are people who regularly write and use APIs. I'm going to trust their interpretation over the courts or legals interpretation, and I'll trust the EFF because they generally actually do know what they are talking about. quote:All agree that Google was and remains free to use the Java language itself." Oracle wants a piece of the pie. That doesn't mean they deserve it. Oracle is the new SCO. CommieGIR posted:The best example of this is: I want you to write a paper using the English language, but I own half the words and you cannot use them so you need to re-define those words so they don't violate my copyright. They also cannot be used in their standard format grammar wise, even though they will only really work in that order with that defined meaning. But we're open source, fair use etc. I'm going to re-point to this example. Oracles arguments may be very legal, but programming wise they are very sketchy and very worrying because it shows Oracle wants to use its size as a legal weight to wrangle license fees out of API users. If you needed a reminder: quote:In or around 2003, SCO began to claim that Linux "contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX".[20] SCO filed suit against IBM for an unprecedented US$1 billion and demanded that Linux end-users pay license fees. Microsoft bolstered SCO's financial situation in 2003 by purchasing a license to UNIX technology and by helping to arrange funding.[21] A new division called SCOsource was created to license the company's intellectual property (IP). These claims provoked outrage among Linux users, who denied that Linux had copied SCO's intellectual property. Linux distributor Red Hat filed suit against SCO in Delaware. Novell, from whom SCO claimed to have acquired its UNIX IP, announced that it had not sold the copyrights to SCO and that it retained them. In response, SCO sued Novell for slander of title in Utah, home state of both SCO and Novell. This argument sounds very familiar. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:03 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The EFF isn't an uninformed group. They have valid reason to be concerned, and I know plenty of people in the devlopment world who are very concerned about this. These are people who regularly write and use APIs. I'm going to trust their interpretation over the courts or legals interpretation, and I'll trust the EFF because they generally actually do know what they are talking about. EFF used to be informed. These days they cater to people who want to believe that IP is the reason for everything bad. Their legal analysis has been lovely for several years now (probably because most of their good lawyers left, though their lobbyist Ernesto is a good dude.) People in the development world aren't loving lawyers and their opinion on legal outcomes should be trusted about as much as my opinion on whether your lovely code is going to cause the compiler to throw a type mismatch warning (or maybe less since at least I went to school for electrical engineering and wrote code for a living at one point.)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 01:05
|
|