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.
Thread beginning with comment 514068
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Language in general
by boxy on Fri 13th Apr 2012 15:12 UTC
boxy
Member since:
2011-06-20

This is incredibly surprising. I thought ALL languages were absolutely NOT copyrightable. It seems like the concepts 'Freedom of Speech' (for all forms of Speech) and 'Copyrightable Language' (in all forms of language) cannot exist in the same legal system because they are polar opposites.

I mean, it makes no sense for a language itself to be copyrightable. It does make sense for the works created using language to be copyrightable. Just like you can't (or shouldn't be able to) copyright English, Spanish, Dutch, or any other language but you CAN copyright things made using that language.

Also, as many others have pointed out, there's so much evidence of prior art in this case that it doesn't make sense at all for Oracle to even go this route, and it comes off (to me at least) as looking desperate.

Last but not least, this wouldn't even be an issue if Copyright terms weren't so ridiculous. There's no good reason for Copyright to last longer than 5 years. What started out as an artificial monopoly granted to reward the creator for their work and contribution to Science and the Arts has been perverted by the legal system into something that actually stifles Science and the Arts. It's despicable.

Please correct me if I'm wrong by providing links to relevant material.

Reply Score: 1