Hacker News Reader

Comment by oneloop | Hacker News Reader

Oooooo shit. Isn't this phrase horrible? Don't get me wrong, I think suing over checkRange is ludicrous... but doesn't saying "declaring code isn't code" terrible? He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words. Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE".

View on HN

> Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE".

This doesn't follow, sometimes language does unexpected things. E.g. a dwarf planet isn't a planet.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle

Yes, because dwarf persons aren't persons, right?

Dwarf persons aren't dwarves.

Did I say something offensive?

Of course code declarations are "code" the same way a library listing of book titles is made up of "words". Unique, creative words that cannot be explained by chance or well known to the audience before their creation by the author. Yet, none should be protected by copyright, this is the intention of "is not code".

Your example is a good one because it is established law that book titles can't be copyrighted.

But it can be trademarked. Still, I can't see anybody successfully managing to apply trademark law to APIs in general.

I think a better analogy would be the table of contents for a novel.

Function headers are no more code than a table of contents entry is a story.

See Java & JavaScript ;)

Yeah, same thought here. I understand what he meant, and pretty much everybody on HN understands it.. but to a (potentially) non-technical juror, that just does not sound good at all. I hope that one gaffe doesn't cost Google the case.

If the juror can't understand the distinction between declaration and implementation, then he is not fit for this particular case. Isn't it smart of him to make that point explicit?

He made the distinction extremely poorly. And jurors are not expected to be experts in anything. It's the lawyers' job to make the case to people who are not experts.

In fact, jurors are instructed not to make use of any particular expertise they might have, and instead to rely only on testimony heard during the trial.

It's not that terrible:

> "Declaring the title of a book is not writing a book"

I think you can make a reasonable analogy there.

Writing an outline of a book is more analogous.

that would imply they plagiarized code...

How about "table of contents"?

"declaring code" means headers, or in the case of Java function specification/prototypes, right? As in "declarations". I think it's technical language twisted through legalese.

Yep. The argument is that API specifications are not code, and reimplementing an API based on specifications is not a copyright infringement. It should not matter whether the specs are written in a natural language or a more formal one. Specs are more like ideas, and ideas cannot be copyrighted (the specification document itself could constitute a copyrighted work, though!)

The problem is that to reimplement the spec in this case, you do have to copy the formal declarations verbatim. Whether or not those "sentences" are protected, and pass the threshold of originality [1], is what is at stake here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

This is incorrect technically. Oracle has already won API copyrightability claim. http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-denies-google-appe...

The trial now is about Google's "fair use" of those APIs.

Declaring code isn't executed. It's an interface. Its sole purpose is to make sure component A can communicate with component B. It's a protocol.

> He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words

Sounds like standard courtroom behavior to me

A pointer isn't the object. Don't confuse the finger with the moon.

> He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words.

The audacity of Google is astonishing. Betting your mobile business on stolen concepts and getting all third party vendors on board despite the imminent legal trouble is quite a feat.

I actually hope for some fallout for Google; anything else would be a travesty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com