Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Apr 2012 09:40 UTC
Legal "Oracle's case against Google has evolved primarily into a copyright infringement suit over the past several months, and with the full trial scheduled to begin this coming Monday, the court is making an effort to get down to the nuts and bolts of copyright law. The judge issued an order last week requiring that both Google and Oracle provide their respective positions on a fundamental issue in the case: 'Each side shall take a firm yes or no position on whether computer programming languages are copyrightable'." Seems like an easy enough answer to me, especially since Oracle's example doesn't hold up at all - Oracle points to Klingon's custom glyphs to illustrate that a language can fall under copyright, but unlike Klingon, a programming language uses standard glyphs we all use every day. Arguing you can copyright that is borderline psychotic, and opens up a whole can of worms.
Permalink for comment 514058
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Preposterous!
by jburnett on Fri 13th Apr 2012 13:39 UTC in reply to "Preposterous!"
Member since:

Sadly, the problem is that the lawyers understand both the law and the technology too well. They just don't care if their actions destroy an industry because it isn't theirs.

Many lawyers actually believe they are doing the right thing. If you take out the political/philosophical debate over what the law should say, and just look at what it does say, then a lot of what the lawyers argue makes sense.

It can be argued then, that if what they say follows the law, and following the law would kill an industry, then perhaps that industry should not exist anyway. After all, "the law" has existed for centuries and people have done well following it. On the other hand, very few industries today are that old, and industries tend to shaft a lot of people as they get older anyway. (Probably why the oldest industry still in existence spends just about all of its time "shafting" everybody involved and doesn't seem to care what they law says anyway.)

In any case, don't blame the lawyers. Blame the greedy business and technology school grads, or the corporate investors, who want the lawyers to do these things. And before you say the lawyers never refuse, I have personally seen a grown man cry because he had to refuse a client with a practically unlimited litigation budget because the client wanted something that was completely frivolous.

Reply Parent Score: 2