Oracle: why 9 lines of rangeCheck code is copyright infringement
groklaw.net
groklaw.net
Maybe this whole misunderstanding comes from the fact that Oracle just thinks programming is a lot harder than it is.
Is any code written by a High School student automatically uncopyrightable?
As there's only 9 lines of code, that's quantitatively small. The continual references to 'high school programmer' is to argue that it's also qualitatively small. Hence, de minimus.
But something like the rangeCheck function is what you'd get if you asked a junior programmer "before you're going to access that datastructure make sure your within its range". Furthermore it's a completely irrelevant part of Android as a whole which gave Google no competitive advantage whatsoever.
First, trivial bits of a work with minimal creative expression are not covered by copyright. This sort of thing is called "de minimis". You can't assert copyright, for example, on the words "You're welcome" just because they appeared in a work you've copyrighted. If you could, you'd certainly be rich, but that kind of rent seeking is a little beyond the purpose of copyright. Rebecca Black's "Friday", as awful as it may be, is full of creative expression. Google is arguing that rangeCheck is extremely minimal and perfunctory, kind of like if it were accused of copying the word "Partying" from Rebecca Black.
Second, IIRC Oracle is making a big deal out of this copying. Google was willing to pay a statuory fee for its indiscretion just like it would if it had actually used a trivial function from a high schooler, but Oracle is trying to make this function out to be a difficult and important part of Java, meaning it deserves a share of Google's profits.
If I could give you a vague description of "Friday" and you could immediately go and produce the exact lyrics and melody that Black did, I'd say it wouldn't deserve copyright protection either. Of course, "Friday" is far more complex than that.
Actually, the song was created by ARK Music Factory, as described on their Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARK_Music_Factory
Rebecca Black's parents paid a couple thousand bucks for the privilege of having their daughter sing it and make a music video around it.
I doubt that a) Rebecca Black came out with it in two minutes and b) hers is the most obvious implementation of "song".
The crucial question with copyright is "did they copy it". If it's a trivial portion of code that anyone could have written then why go out of your way (assuming the rest of it is not copied) to copy that particular part. If indeed it is not copied then Oracle will not be able to show it was, not even on the balance of probabilities [that's used in civil tort cases in the UK I gather, not sure of the measure applicable here].
It appears to be a bug in the statute if the test is whether the copied part is de minimis. The UK statute IIRC specifies that it must not be a 'significant part', which seems to lean more to qualitative considerations than quantitative ones.
The point with this particular code is it's so obvious that many (most?) programmers would come up with the exact same code when given the task. It's part of the bigger picture that code isn't prose, it's instructions. How do you accomplish this task in this given system? First A, then B, then C. The first person to give some simple set of instructions should not be the only one allowed to.
Absolutely not. [Provably] Not copying is an absolute defence.
I understand that the circumstances of an ex-employee contributing to an open source codebase and wanting to do things right by not unnecessarily duplicating code might be too much for your average jury, but it should be made clear to those who can understand that this is utterly appalling behaviour by Oracle, rather than a case of a sloppy Google employee getting away with a small amount of IP theft.
Nonsense. In HS I wrote my first 3d graphics engine in Pascal on a 80286 with a Hercules graphics card and a monochrome monitor. As a sophomore. Of course I had guidance to get to that level but no programming student past intro would need any help for rangeCheck.
rangeCheck is trivial. Any non-programmer could have written it as the first thing they ever created if they had a book next to them.
At this point Oracle's claims are asinine. The whole thing would be laughable if it wasn't such a huge waste of time/money.
> Judge: I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?
Then:
> Judge: rangeCheck! All it does is make sure the numbers you're inputting are within a range, and gives them some sort of exceptional treatment. That witness, when he said a high school student could do it--
http://www.i-programmer.info/news/193-android/4224-oracle-v-...
A builder is suing another builder in the next state over for stealing his plans and constructing a house following them.
Used by Oracle as evidence is that someone swung a hammer three times in the garage in a row in the same way someone else swung a hammer three times in a row, which produced two nails hammered in in exactly the same way.
I hate Oracle as much as anyone else here, but I refuse to support Groklaw. Patents and copyrights are very important for the fate of mankind, and I will not start trusting anonymous reporting and support of Groklaw just because Oracle is getting called out as an asshole atm.
2) There are anonymous blog posts submitted to HN every day, which you appear to never have had a problem with. Why this one?
3) If you have an argument why "patents and copyrights are very important for the fate of mankind", and somehow this particular copyright case is a bellwether for that fate, make it. Otherwise there is no substance to your post, just blind assertions (and anonymous ones, at that :).
Are other corporations actively supporting her? To what degree? Financially, for hosting the site? Sources? Evidence? Opinions?
2). None are held with the same esteem as Groklaw, which I know most people default to for current news about patents and copyrights.
What isn't being covered by Groklaw? I'm not smart enough to answer that, and I doubt few here are. Is that something to be worried about? We are all trusting an expert which few people here can call out.
3). You are right, there is nothing special about this copyright case in particular. However, I do have a problem with the level of trust that Groklaw receives from the rest of the community. I have supported everything Groklaw has done to this point; however, I am severely worried about the lack of competition when it comes to giving the same level of reporting. One perspective is always bad.
> I have supported everything Groklaw has done to this point.
Kindly do two things for us: stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, and, instead of ineffectually waving your hands, point to specifically what Groklaw got wrong on this issue.
This blog needs a high level of transparency. If you can't imagine how Groklaw might be abused you are a fool.
You seem to be making the claim that Groklaw is somehow worthy of scrutiny (which implies that they are somehow dangerous, or at least influential, but I'll get to that in a moment). You're also implying that Groklaw does not have a competitor.
In general, you're right that demanding transparency from politically influential organizations shouldn't require a burden of proof. However, I've seen no evidence that Groklaw is either politically influential or influential in matters of law. The principals behind Groklaw may be influential in their own professional rights, but Groklaw itself is not: Groklaw does not have a horse in this race. Do you think that the judge is reading Groklaw and thinking, "Hmm, good point"? Or that the attorneys for either side are doing the same? Or that the jurors are, which is strictly forbidden? I seriously doubt that Groklaw's analyses are having any impact on the case.
You're also wrong that Groklaw doesn't have a competitor, at least where this case is concerned. Groklaw has been publicly at odds with Ars Technica's Joe Mullin, even (in at least one instance that I remember) poking a little fun at him for getting the outcome of this case so wrong.
And, just last year, Groklaw came quite close to voluntarily shutting down (http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruc...) entirely because the SCO vs. Linux (et al) cases, which Groklaw was created to discuss, were pretty much all settled. Any suspicions of nefarious purposes on Groklaw's part would have to explain why Groklaw was so willing to just shut down at that point.
I don't disagree that it would be nice if there were more sites doing in-depth legal analyses of technical cases targeted for a layman audience. But, the demand for that is pretty small, and so is the supply: I expect that there aren't very many legal professionals that are at the top of the game at law and technology, and possess the ability and desire to publish in-depth analyses of cases where they aren't making any money.
So now the ball's in your court. Why, specifically, should we be questioning Groklaw's motives?
You are saying Groklaw is not influential politically or in matters of law. I agree. However, I think you are severly downplaying the influence Groklaw has on the people who read it.
My main fear is that Groklaw becomes the site that programmers go to not to find out the state of a case but to find out what opinion they should have about it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm afraid that people will say "I like company A's usage of patents/I dislike company B's usage of patents."
I'm a big proponent of patent nullification, especially in the area of algorithmic/cosmetic areas. Of course that's a vague definition, but I think most people will know what I mean. However, at this point, that is a very scary opinion to certain influential people.
Page rank is a patented aglorithmm. Intellectual Ventures is a huge known patent troll. I think bgC3, the new company of Bill Gates, is going to spearhead some very advanced patent trolling tactics (I have no evidence for this).
But right now the blogosphere is more or less just passively angry. People read what's going on in the news, argue for a bit and go have dinner. Almost no one is protesting because of patents.
It's a big deal. Over 50% of our Medicare obligated spending for the future (I think 38.6 trillion by the last count) is due to patents.
I guess I can't help being a troll when it comes to this subject, and I fucking despise the idea that Groklaw has the ear of so many programmers when they argue only in the short-term and in a reactive manner. I support what they do, but the factual tone limits them to being short-term and prevents them from making the vaguer strong claims that they should be making.
Groklaw is in the position to influence people on the most important subject of the 21st century, and I think they are doing a poor job of it as well as making whatever motives/resources might exist transparent.
Patent nullification is one of my favorite things, too, and I've heard quite a few other people argue either for that or for massive overhauls of the US PTO. But, that's all very expensive and somewhat politically suicidal, so at the moment going and having dinner seems to be about the best thing that anyone can do. That, and cheer on companies like Mojang when they choose to double down and destroy an offensive patent troll rather than settling (https://twitter.com/notch/status/226604081932812288).
As far as Groklaw goes ... I sympathize, but I think the organization you're looking for is the EFF. Groklaw was never really intended to be an activist organization; they just wanted to help the Linux community understand what was going on in the SCO case (and stomp them a bit publicly too). Groklaw doesn't seem to have been biased in favor of one particular company, to the extent that they cheer on that company for offensive use of patents against a competitor.
Groklaw is however providing a very valuable service in helping programmers better understand the law where it applies to patents, and I think we should appreciate that instead of criticizing them for not doing more. (Especially since nobody else does what they do as well as they do -- except maybe Grellas here on HN sometimes.)
Groklaw and PJ are very opinionated, but it is not her or the site's fault if the people who read it choose to consume everything published there without using their own judgement. To be honest, they don't make any bones about how opinionated they are about the issues they cover.
> Groklaw is in the position to influence people on the most important subject of the 21st century, and I think they are doing a poor job of it as well as making whatever motives/resources might exist transparent.
They are one of the few sources that cover IP litigation in software in detail. They are biased and far from perfect, but I am glad they are there doing what they do. Over my years of reading them I have learned what to filter out and what to retain while reading the site. But that is my responsibility (as it is of others who read the site).
The site's mission statement makes for interesting reading, especially point number three:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2004092304...
"Third, it's an antiFUD site. We strive to present solid facts in rebuttal to attempts to smear FOSS with fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), as well as to correct well-meaning but inaccurate portrayals of Linux, GNU/Linux and the FOSS community."
They are honest and upfront about this agenda. If people choose to ignore that and take everything published there as the golden standard, it is certainly the fault of the reader.
And indeed, you shouldn't.
You should read Groklaw, though, because for almost a decade now, it has been providing coverage, analysis and explanations which are clear, to the point, mostly objective (in the sense that they apply the law, rather than a wishful thinking version of it), and that their predictions were mostly the ones later decided by courts.
And then decide if you trust specific arguments based on their merit, rather than their source.
This site has a monopoly on a perspective that a lot of hackers hold, I don't think that should be ignored.
People use groklaw as reference because it agrees with their perspective.
People do not have that perspective just because it's on groklaw.
Groklaw is an amazing site and 30 seconds of research would have shown your whole argument as invalid.
Let's say, hypothetically, Company A started using patents/copyrights in a certain way and also happened to back Groklaw. Would you want to know? How would you check that?
Also, you do not mention any sources. You do not seem to try to connect with my opinion. You claim that the evidence is obvious and that any perceived flaws are simply of my imagination. That isn't exactly an intelligent response, and it's one you shouldn't be proud to share.
I lied, it wasn't 30 seconds research, more like 10 seconds.
If you don't like Groklaw then do your own research. PJ links to the sources in general, allowing you to read the articles and make up your own mind. Or bypass Groklaw and do your own research on the internet.
It is easy to diss a site - where is your proof to back up your concerns?