Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Apr 2012 09:40 UTC
"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.
Thread beginning with comment 514034
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-09-17
RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Fri 13th Apr 2012 12:42
in reply to "RE: Comment by Soulbender"
Member since:2005-08-18
RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender
by CapEnt on Fri 13th Apr 2012 15:32
in reply to "RE: Comment by Soulbender"
Member since:2005-12-18
You can't copyright language.
Languages falls in the same realm of mathematical formulas, and indeed, is a mathematical construct itself. Indeed, in a programming language, this is even more obvious, since its nothing more than a high level mathematical notation to describe logical procedures to a turing-like machine, who is nothing more than a form of calculator.
Member since:2012-03-26
Member since:
2005-08-18
For real? Klingon?? Their example is a fictional work of art with a disputed copyright? Wouldn't it have been better to point to a constructed language with an upheld copyright?
Yeah, doesn't sound like a great plan to me.