Tim, Judge Alsup did not conflate patent and copyright law. With regards to asserting copyright in the Java API he concludes:
"To repeat, Section 102(b) states that “in no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation . . . regardless of the form . . . .” That a system or method of operation has thousands of commands arranged in a creative taxonomy does not change its character as a method of operation. Yes, it is creative. Yes, it is original. Yes, it resembles a taxonomy. But it is nevertheless a command structure, a system or method of operation — a long hierarchy of over six thousand commands to carry out pre-assigned functions. For that reason, it cannot receive copyright protection — patent protection perhaps — but not copyright protection." Martin On Sunday, May 11, 2014 8:37:36 AM UTC+2, da...@axiom-developer.org wrote: > > > At the risk of getting slightly off-topic here, here's a comment on > > Hacker News from a well-respected commenter on legal issues - he's a > > lawyer specialising in startup and technology law and his analysis is > > uniformly excellent. He argues that while the result may be > > unpalatable, it's by no means the stitch-up by technological > > ignoramuses that that article makes it sound: > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7722674 > > Judge Alsop conflated two distinct and non-overlapping areas of > intellectual property law by claiming that a copyrightable work > (the API) must "rise to the level of warranting patent protection". > While that's a novel idea, it is nowhere in the copyright law. > (Oracle, by the way, also holds patents on Java). > > Where the new decision might have a direct impact on Clojure would be > if someone were to create a stand-alone Clojure (or other products > that enable a developer to use Java directly in their products) that > was compatible with the JVM-hosted version. There would seem to be a > need for API-compatible functions. Doubly so if you could excute jar > files. The court could find that "infringing", it seems. > > On April 29th, Steven Vaughan-Nichols (a lawyer) predicted that Oracle > would be defeated in court [0]... and he was wrong. Text is "born > with copyright" and the API is a text specification. > > The EFF lawyer [1] who provided a friend-of-the-court brief seems very > unhappy with the decision. > > Florian Mueller [2] at fosspatents.com has a much more in-depth > analysis and basically agrees with the decision. He includes detailed > quotes from the Court. > > Google claims that Sun issued Java under the GPL2. But Oracle has the > freedom to change a license on its products and has made Java API > changes since the Sun Java purchase. They did the same thing with > MySQL, also GPL2, which is now "pay-to-play". > > Our trouble with the Courts, and possibly with the lawyer's reasoning, > is that they are not programmers. The other problem is that they are > deciding the case on what the law SAYS, not on the effects. But the > judge ruled that > (a) Oracle could copyright the API > (b) Google infringed that copyright > > Google's defense rests on "fair use" [3] quoted below. I have learned > that "legalese" is NOT English so words don't mean what you think they > mean. "Legalese" is also not logical but depends on prior cases. With > those caveats, I don't see that Google has any chance to prevail. Oracle > can certainly claim that the listed exceptions don't apply and that > the 4 listed criteria all weigh in on their side. > > As we all know, a widely used API has "network effects"... you use it > because everybody uses it. That's essentially why Google chose it > rather than create their own. They can leverage the huge number of > programmers who already use it. It would be a challenge to convince > designers creating an API to create a "competing, non-infringing > version". Of course, Oracle claims that their API is very valuable > intellectual property, vital to their business, and copyrighted. > > I personally hate the Court's decision but I also think they > read the law as it was intended. Oracle is not SCO; they won't > go away any time soon. > > So what would a non-JVM Clojure do? A non-profit JVM-compatible > Clojure product would potentially escape using clause (1) below [3], > assuming it was used for "non-profit educational purposes". > > Can a non-Java Clojure be defined? > > Tim Daly > > ========================================================================= > > [0] > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/oracle-vs-google-dead-lawsuit-walking/10843 > > > [1] > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/dangerous-ruling-oracle-v-google-federal-circuit-reverses-sensible-lower-court > > > [2] > http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-copyright.html > > [3] Copyright Law Exceptions (quoted for "comment" purposes) :-) > > "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair > use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in > copies or phonorecords, or by any other means specified by that > section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, > teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, > or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining > whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair > use the factors to be considered shall include: > 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such > use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational > purposes; > 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; > 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to > the copyrighted work as a whole; and > 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value > of the copyrighted work." > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
