|
evilweasel posted:microsoft doesn't own the copyright to the windows programs though, which is the problem in your analysis. interoperability is one of the most common things cited to justify fair use They do own the copyright to Windows APIs, though? The part that WINE has to have indentical copy of in order to be interoperable.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
Ornedan posted:They do own the copyright to Windows APIs, though? The part that WINE has to copy as-is in order to be interoperable. Right. The issue is, hobbesmaster was saying the problem was you could run "windows programs" without buying windows: copyright law has no issues whatsoever with that in theory, provided the execution complies with copyright law. Fair use almost certainly covers the parts of the Windows APIs you must copy for interoperability - though no more. To do it right you'd want to give your coder the specifications for the API, and tell him to code his own code to implement the API (which is what I assume WINE does).
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This is a major differing point. The WINE project is not in the business of selling software, licensing software, or selling hardware. They make what is functionally an emulator that allows you to run windows software on various posix OSes. They do not function as an organization in any way like the google android team and do not have the same purpose or goal. Google made the argument that Google gives Android away for free under an open source license and Android is therefore non-commercial. The court rejected that at 29-30 of the opinion, using the language I noted above. WINE is a free substitute for commercially-offered Windows and is therefore a commercial use under the Federal Circuit's analysis. Mr. Nice! posted:Wine isn’t directly lifting MS code to use because MS doesn’t just give its code willy nilly. In fact, if i remember correctly (although I am out of date) most WINE developers are vehemently against using native MS code in any way in the project. But aren't the API declarations identical by necessity? Mr. Nice! posted:This is the big one, and this is the biggest part. Google stole code and used it to flood the smartphone market. Google has made hundreds of billions of dollars off of their non-fair use copyright violation. WINE has not and will not. Every Linux computer using WINE to run a Windows program is a potential lost sale of a Windows license. The potential market harm is relatively obvious for WINE. evilweasel posted:Right. The issue is, hobbesmaster was saying the problem was you could run "windows programs" without buying windows: copyright law has no issues whatsoever with that in theory, provided the execution complies with copyright law. Fair use almost certainly covers the parts of the Windows APIs you must copy for interoperability - though no more. To do it right you'd want to give your coder the specifications for the API, and tell him to code his own code to implement the API (which is what I assume WINE does). Those specifications would likely be declarations and structure, sequence, and organization (java.util, java.lang, etc.) of the API, which is what Google just lost on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
WINE is commercial though? https://www.codeweavers.com/
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Fair use almost certainly covers the parts of the Windows APIs you must copy for interoperability - though no more. Didn't the circuit court just say it doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Didn't the circuit court just say it doesn't? In my read, yes. The Federal Circuit did leave open reverse engineering for interoperability based on 9th Circuit precedent for third party video game cartridges, but I think that was about it. quote:We do not conclude that a fair use defense could never be sustained in an action involving the copying of computer code. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has made it clear that some such uses can be fair. See Sony, 203 F.3d at 608; Sega, 977 F.2d at 1527-28. We hold that, given the facts relating to the copying at issue here—which differ materially from those at issue in Sony and Sega—Google’s copying and use of this particular code was not fair as a matter of law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
This is where I point out that the trial judge actually took classes to learn how to write Java to understand what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Didn't the circuit court just say it doesn't? My understanding is the Federal Circuit decision relied on the fact that Google wasn't aiming for interoperability, just to make coding on Android easier for people used to Java. But I do think they cocked up the decision pretty badly and it will make stuff that would have been fair use as a matter of law before now have a risk of going to the jury.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
duz posted:WINE is commercial though? https://www.codeweavers.com/ Bare WINE is free, CodeWeavers sells the service of wrapping it in a friendly utility for less technical or lazier users.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Bare WINE is free, CodeWeavers sells the service of wrapping it in a friendly utility for less technical or lazier users. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This is where I point out that the trial judge actually took classes to learn how to write Java to understand what was going on. IMO Alsup has been right all along and the Federal Circuit has been wrong, but this is consistent with my general* "gently caress the Federal Circuit" approach. *Unless the appeal came out of ED Texas back in the day, in which case the Federal Circuit was your only hope as a defendant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Regardless I look forward to seeing how the supreme court fucks this up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Right. The issue is, hobbesmaster was saying the problem was you could run "windows programs" without buying windows: copyright law has no issues whatsoever with that in theory, provided the execution complies with copyright law. Fair use almost certainly covers the parts of the Windows APIs you must copy for interoperability - though no more. This is a meaningless statement, because the whole point of the API is that it's the definitions necessary for interoperability, and no more. hobbesmaster posted:This is where I point out that the trial judge actually took classes to learn how to write Java to understand what was going on. Unfortunately, writing simple Java programs doesn't make you understand how a large software system comes together, any more than reading a bunch of laws makes you a lawyer. I get the feeling the judge might have actually played with writing and packaging interfaces, and realized in the process that "hey, this is difficult creative work." Unfortunately, that doesn't make it copyrightable, any more than an airplane cockpit or factory control room layout, which are near-exact physical analogies to an API. e: looks like I was wrong on the exact process, but the argument remains the same. The court recognized that APIs are difficult creative work and jumped from there to "this is copyrightable, someone has gotta own that IP" which is a big loving mistake Space Gopher fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
The trial judge isn’t the one who decided it was copyrightable. (That’s the court of appeals.) He’s also not the one who overruled the jury’s fair use determination. (Again, court of appeals.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The trial judge isn’t the one who decided it was copyrightable. And the CoA is basically correct. Almost any standard API use that people worry about is actual fair use. Google’s actions were almost entire in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And the CoA is basically correct. Almost any standard API use that people worry about is actual fair use. Google’s actions were almost entire in bad faith. Having to worry about whether or not Oracle will take you to court over your 101% fair use is still going to cause a chilling effect on people trying to build compatible software implementations. Especially smaller developers, who Oracle (among others, but especially Oracle) will happily crush like a bug no matter how fair the use might actually be. Beyond that, if you think APIs are copyrightable material, what's your opinion on airplane cockpits? If Airbus comes up with some sweet new control scheme, should they be able to say "Boeing isn't allowed to do anything that looks like this, or even parts of it, we have copyrighted this method of giving inputs to a complex system and viewing the results?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And the CoA is basically correct. Almost any standard API use that people worry about is actual fair use. Google’s actions were almost entire in bad faith. They’re really not. Copying API declarations to reimplement a language is quintessential fair use. It puts into question projects like WINE and other clean-room reverse engineering projects. Also, it’s plainly at odds with existing 9th Circuit caselaw on the topic, which is what CAFC was supposed to be basing its decision on, since they use regional circuit law for issues (like copyright) that aren’t within their exclusive jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Having to worry about whether or not Oracle will take you to court over your 101% fair use is still going to cause a chilling effect on people trying to build compatible software implementations. Especially smaller developers, who Oracle (among others, but especially Oracle) will happily crush like a bug no matter how fair the use might actually be. Unfortunately any example like that would be patent law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Unfortunately any example like that would be patent law. Which is yet another reason why it's insane to protect APIs under copyright.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
I think an airline cockpit isn’t a good analogy at all. Every airline cockpit is not identical. The individual functional switches may be generally in the same place and have the same function, but there is still creative design work going on with the design of the cockpit, location of every device, chairs, etc that is absolutely the intellectual property of the various manufacturers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think an airline cockpit isn’t a good analogy at all. Every airline cockpit is not identical. The individual functional switches may be generally in the same place and have the same function, but there is still creative design work going on with the design of the cockpit, location of every device, chairs, etc that is absolutely the intellectual property of the various manufacturers. Well, you can change the font and spacing of your API documentation (you know, the non-functional components that aren't integral to the constructed mode of communication). Oh and the wording of English language descriptions, etc. What you can't change without changing function are the API headers, except in the most trivial of ways. Stickman fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Also, it’s plainly at odds with existing 9th Circuit caselaw on the topic, which is what CAFC was supposed to be basing its decision on, since they use regional circuit law for issues (like copyright) that aren’t within their exclusive jurisdiction. No, no, Sega and Sony are distinguishable because the CAFC said so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Well, you can change the font and spacing of your API documentation (you know, the non-functional components that aren't integral to the constructed mode of communication). Oh and the wording of English language descriptions, etc. What you can't change without changing function are the API headers, except in the most trivial of ways. If google had made even the cursory attempt to generate their own java compatible api I might be swayed by such arguments. They whole cloth copied in bad faith and profited hundreds of billions based in large part to said theft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:This is a meaningless statement, because the whole point of the API is that it's the definitions necessary for interoperability, and no more. Isn't the main issue that Google implemented the API in such a way as to prevent interoperability with other implementations? That would definitely be a big mark against it being fair use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This is a major differing point. The WINE project is not in the business of selling software, licensing software, or selling hardware. They make what is functionally an emulator that allows you to run windows software on various posix OSes. They do not function as an organization in any way like the google android team and do not have the same purpose or goal. quote:Wine isn’t directly lifting MS code to use because MS doesn’t just give its code willy nilly. In fact, if i remember correctly (although I am out of date) most WINE developers are vehemently against using native MS code in any way in the project. Wine developers can (and do) use the Microsoft documentation when programming Wine. That's more or less the spec sheet. quote:This is the big one, and this is the biggest part. Google stole code and used it to flood the smartphone market. Google has made hundreds of billions of dollars off of their non-fair use copyright violation. WINE has not and will not. Do you really expect Wine to survive a substantial lawsuit litigating the bounds of fair use that will then get appealed to CAFC? I'm not sure how what you're advocating for doesn't lead to long expensive trials whenever an API gets used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Isn't the main issue that Google implemented the API in such a way as to prevent interoperability with other implementations? That would definitely be a big mark against it being fair use. Sun/Oracle doesn't even promise source compatibility between its own versions. They promise to try though!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Isn't the main issue that Google implemented the API in such a way as to prevent interoperability with other implementations? That would definitely be a big mark against it being fair use. No. That only comes up as part of why Google abandoned its arguments based on Google's interoperability (footnote 11).
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:If google had made even the cursory attempt to generate their own java compatible api I might be swayed by such arguments. They whole cloth copied in bad faith and profited hundreds of billions based in large part to said theft. If the content of API headers is entirely functional, why should copyright and fair use come up at all when it comes to the functional components? Just because some functional components were changed doesn't make those components any less functional. You could argue that some form of patent should apply (it shouldn't), but it seems pretty backwards to defend shoving it into a copyright box.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think an airline cockpit isn’t a good analogy at all. Every airline cockpit is not identical. The individual functional switches may be generally in the same place and have the same function, but there is still creative design work going on with the design of the cockpit, location of every device, chairs, etc that is absolutely the intellectual property of the various manufacturers. Of course every airliner cockpit isn't identical; APIs aren't identical to each other, either. But, airplane cockpits tend to look very similar to each other - they're all doing similar things on some level, and manufacturers deliberately choose layouts and designs similar to other manufacturers' designs, so that pilots trained on one can move to another. Nobody claims that a manufacturer building a standard six-pack instrument layout is acting in bad faith by copying somebody else's design to make it easier for pilots to transition onto their new airplane, or that that particular layout should be copyrighted by Cessna or whoever. But, OK, let's take it one step farther. Do you think that GM deserves to get paid whenever anybody builds a car with "gas on the right, brake on the left"? Cadillac was the first to use that layout, and everybody just copied them. There's no inherent reason for automotive controls to be laid out that way. If how you interact with a complex system should be copyrightable, and this isn't some "it's different because it's on a computer" thing, it seems like that would qualify. Raldikuk posted:Isn't the main issue that Google implemented the API in such a way as to prevent interoperability with other implementations? That would definitely be a big mark against it being fair use. They didn't implement the full API, not because of deliberate lock-in, but because the backing functionality wasn't the same. Basically, they designed a different system with a lot of similar elements, using the organization of the Java API as a starting point so that Java developers could transition to the new system without too much trouble.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Stickman posted:If the content of API headers is entirely functional, why should copyright and fair use come up at all when it comes to the functional components? Just because some functional components were changed doesn't make those components any less functional. You could argue that some form of patent should apply (it shouldn't), but it seems pretty backwards to defend shoving it into a copyright box. That was the prior case. The APIs are not completely functional (compare Java and .NET just as one example). This is the official view of the Solicitor General of the United States when the Supreme Court decided if it would hear Google's appeal on copyrightability: quote:Petitioner therefore is incorrect in suggesting (see Pet. 26; Pet. App. 23) that a work could be both an “original work[] of authorship” protectable under Section 102(a) and a “method of operation” or “system” under Section 102(b). If a work constitutes expression (and if it is original), it is copyrightable under Section 102(a). Section 102(b) merely excludes from copyright protection the subject matter explained or described in the expressive work. ...the Solicitor General went on to suggest the use would be fair, but that that issue would come up on remand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Unfortunately any example like that would be patent law. If you asked the Federal Circuit whether Apple v. MS barred copyright protection for UIs, I suspect they'd find a way to say it didn't. (And a cockpit is nothing more than a physical UI.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And the CoA is basically correct. Almost any standard API use that people worry about is actual fair use. Google’s actions were almost entire in bad faith. This is essentially an argument about Google's intentions, not their actions. I'm not inclined to assume good faith on the part of Google, but it's going to have a massive chilling effect if there isn't an easy distinction that's based on pertinent details of their actions rather than just what they meant by it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
The whole point of IP law in general is to protect creators from having their property taken without compensation. Intent matters critically to any fair use analysis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The whole point of IP law in general is to protect creators from having their property taken without compensation. No, it isn't. The whole point of IP law is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. We aren't a moral rights nation. But that aside, Google could quite reasonably have felt—based on existing case law—that their use was fair use, meaning that their use wasn't in bad faith at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
ulmont posted:That was the prior case. The APIs are not completely functional (compare Java and .NET just as one example). I don't understand what you mean by this. Java and .NET are different, but that doesn't have anything to do with the interface specification for a library somehow not being completely functional. The way I'm parsing what you're saying, it's like saying "Phillips screws, flathead screws, and Torx screws all exist, therefore the indentation on the top of the screw is not completely functional"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
However many thousands sitting in jail without bond awaiting trial, and this is what the court system has time to sperg over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:I don't understand what you mean by this. Java and .NET are different, but that doesn't have anything to do with the interface specification for a library somehow not being completely functional. According to the Federal Circuit, the indentation on the top of a screw is in fact not completely functional. (If it was completely functional they’d bar design patents on screw indentations and yeah that is not the case.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Javid posted:However many thousands sitting in jail without bond awaiting trial, and this is what the court system has time to sperg over. To be fair a lack of time and resources isn't why that won't be addressed. The dickering over such cases is a perfect example of how our "justice" system is set up to benefit and protect capitalist interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, it isn't. The whole point of IP law is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. We aren't a moral rights nation. How do you promote progress of science and useful arts? By protecting creative expression and intellectual property. That’s the whole purpose. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Apr 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
Kalman posted:No, it isn't. The whole point of IP law is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. We aren't a moral rights nation. In theory. In practice it's to promote and fight for expanding rentierism, as ghouls like Oracle and the retard in this thread arguing that Math.max should be copyrightable have shown.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:11
|
|
