If the consumer is a dedicated Apple user, those phones are quite expensive. That sentence caught my attention because the word popular implies consumer choice, which is in fact very limited in the mobile market. For instance, I would pay attention to language in the brief that makes statements like, “Android is the most popular in the world,” which is presented more than once in defense of Google’s reimplementation of the Java APIs to ultimately “transform” the mobile market. So, let’s consider the argument a bit further, assuming the computer scientist amici are absolutely right on key facts, but perhaps a shade over-saturated in coloring their picture of the broader landscape relative to Google v. This does not mean, however, that the Court will be wholly unsympathetic to the “standard practice” argument, or eager to disturb an entire industry if they believe this could be a consequence of its decision.
Color oracle skeptic code#
And Google has conceded that Oracle’s declaring code is creative. Further, there does not appear to be much if any quarrel with the premise that declaring code can be highly creative-easily creative enough for copyright to attach-and if that is correct, that should be the ballgame as a legal matter, regardless of industry practice and expectations. In reviewing the various briefs filed by experts on both sides of this case, it seems clear that some declaring code is quite simple, and some is very complex-and creativity, presumably, expands with complexity. More specifically, as a question of law, even if we accept the computer scientists’ broad description of industry-wide reimplementation as fact, it tells us nothing about whether there is sufficient creativity in Oracle’s declaring code to qualify for copyright protection. There is nothing remarkable or inherently stifling about these distinctions. In that regard, Java is a classic example of code that offers different tiers of licensing where, for instance, the educator may access all of Java for free, while the commercial user is subject to fees and other conditions.
Color oracle skeptic software#
If these experts say that “reimplementation” of software interfaces (APIs) is standard practice that the software industry has relied upon for decades, that statement must be given both deference and weight.Īt the same time, we must keep in mind that “reimplementation” is not barred by copyright-that in fact much of the “open source” copying in that industry is bound by various conditions, which are defined by licensing agreements that are only enforceable under copyright law. It is hardly sensible for most of us-and certainly not for me-to debate that industry’s conduct with the likes of Steve Wozniack et al. The most compelling argument in this regard is presented in the amicus brief filed by eighty-three computer scientists, which includes some of the most renowned names in software development over the last half century. Nevertheless, the Court may feel hesitant to “upend the software industry,” if it is persuaded that finding copyrightability in Oracle’s code might have this result. In earlier posts, I discussed why Google’s claim that the code at issue should not be held uncopyrightable under the “merger doctrine” (§102(b)), which would have to affirm that the code at issue is a method rather than a form of expression. The Court’s opinion on the copyrightability of Oracle’s “declaring code” will, in one way or another, be felt throughout the software industry, while the Court’s opinion on fair use will affect the entire ecosystem of creators in every category of copyrighted works.Īs discussed in other posts, the Supreme Court should reject Google’s attempt to hyperextend the purpose and character of fair use, and in doing so, it should unanimously decline to transform modern copyright doctrine from the bench. Oracle, the Supreme Court will render opinions on two legal arguments, either of which could have profound effects for different interests. Anyway, FWIW, below is my last observation about Google v. I realize the Court will rule anytime now, and that I may be gilding the proverbial lily here but I drafted this post in early January, and then the world got a little crazy and distracting.
0 kommentar(er)
