Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 21:41 UTC
Legal And thus, it ends. Despite a never-ending stream of doom and gloom from Oracle/Microsoft-funded 'pundits' regarding Google and Android (six hundred billion trillion gazillion eurodollars in damages!!1!), judge Alsup has just squashed all of Oracle's chances with a ruling that is good news for those of us who truly care about this wonderful industry: APIs are not copyrightable. Alsup: "To accept Oracle's claim would be to allow anyone to copyright one version of code to carry out a system of commands and thereby bar all others from writing their own different versions to carry out all or part of the same commands. No holding has ever endorsed such a sweeping proposition." Supreme Court, Ellison?
Thread beginning with comment 520274
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 1st Jun 2012 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

"Right to fork" is good as a right, but in practice forking (or in general creating incompatible implementations) is not always a positive thing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by kwan_e on Fri 1st Jun 2012 02:37 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Right to fork" is good as a right, but in practice forking (or in general creating incompatible implementations) is not always a positive thing.


Depending on your point of view. From the point of view of someone/organization that wants to avoid adapting to change, or wants to maintain complete control, forking is not a good thing.

To those people, I say tough cookies.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 1st Jun 2012 03:10 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

What I mean is, that if forking can be avoided by collaboration on one project - it's better than spreading efforts on incompatible implementations. (Well, in this case it isn't even forking, just incompatible implementation).

Edited 2012-06-01 03:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Fri 1st Jun 2012 03:31 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

I think Oracle are absolutely right in claiming that android's API fork has caused java platform fragmentation. However I think this fragmentation argument shows just how desperate Oracle are here. API's are not copyrightable, and yet a clone of the APIs are in violation of copyright law because they fragment the market? Seriously?

I'd like to try that one myself: Your honour, the defended have not violated our copyrights per say, but their clone has fragmented our market you see? Here we have some charts to prove it too. Here we have a laptop running defrag to demonstrate just how bad fragmentation is...

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by FunkyELF on Fri 1st Jun 2012 13:35 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

XBMC which was forked from XBMP sucked at first and then got considerably better.
Not sure about the MATE fork of Gnome... haven't used it yet... only time will tell.

Reply Parent Score: 3