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 520361
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: APIs not copyrightable
by kwan_e on Fri 1st Jun 2012 17:38 UTC in reply to "APIs not copyrightable"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

So does that mean that Mono was safe all of this time?


The concern with Mono was patents, not copyright. Some claim that we can't trust Microsoft with their legally binding promise* not to sue Mono users. Some claim that we can trust Microsoft. Whatever the actual case may be, they are different concerns from Java.

* I personally don't feel comfortable with their supposedly legally binding promises. If they revoke their promise unilaterally, who actually could challenge Microsoft for breaking the promise?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: APIs not copyrightable
by satan666 on Fri 1st Jun 2012 18:48 in reply to "RE: APIs not copyrightable"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

I personally don't feel comfortable with their supposedly legally binding promises. If they revoke their promise unilaterally, who actually could challenge Microsoft for breaking the promise?


You are right to feel uncomfortable. Any normal person would. But Microsoft don't have to break their promise. Their promise covered only the ECMA part of Mono. Microsoft never promised anything regarding the non-ECMA part of Mono. And that broke Miguel's heart because he had hoped that a complete promise would help him further infect Linux with Microsoft's crap. Subsequently Miguel promised he would split Mono in two parts (ECMA and non-ECMA) for legal reasons. But he never delivered. Mono is dying slowly now. Moonlight is already dead. Novell is dead, Finally Attachmate threw Mono in the dump where it belongs.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: APIs not copyrightable
by _txf_ on Fri 1st Jun 2012 23:07 in reply to "RE[2]: APIs not copyrightable"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

But he never delivered. Mono is dying slowly now. Moonlight is already dead. Novell is dead, Finally Attachmate threw Mono in the dump where it belongs.


As much as I distrust MS, I find .net (as a technology) to be vastly superior to java so that extends to mono as well.

One does not have to own a piece of art to be able to appreciate it.

Edited 2012-06-01 23:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Mono is dying slowly now.


I am not a Mono fanboy, but this is just plain wrong.

Thanks to Unity, PS Vita SDK and AOT compilation for Android and iPhone, Mono is being used a lot in the games industry.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: APIs not copyrightable
by earksiinni on Fri 1st Jun 2012 19:44 in reply to "RE: APIs not copyrightable"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Isn't there a similar concept in British law, the idea of a "poll" (e.g., "name poll")? I believe it's a form of legal obligation where the obligation is unilateral and self-imposed, or something like that. When the obligation is between two or more people, then it becomes a contract (I think).

I really don't know anything about the whole Mono situation, but perhaps the reason why Microsoft called it a "promise" is because the "poll" concept doesn't exist in U.S. law, AFAIK. Yet there may be some serious legal ramifications, just like how registering your copyright is not necessary to enforce it as long as it meets certain criteria (in theory). I always got the feeling that people were skeptical/prejudiced about/against the promise simply because of its name, as if it would sound naive to accept it because it would be like "believing" in a personal guarantee. But really, I haven't informed myself sufficiently to know the grounds for skepticism.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: APIs not copyrightable
by cdude on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 00:15 in reply to "RE[2]: APIs not copyrightable"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The thing is Microsoft only promised that *Microsoft* does not sue. They did not promise the same applies for patent-"exploiter" or Microsoft-partners who have/got rights to do so using the Microsoft .NET patent-pool.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: APIs not copyrightable
by kwan_e on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 03:54 in reply to "RE[2]: APIs not copyrightable"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Isn't there a similar concept in British law, the idea of a "poll" (e.g., "name poll")? I believe it's a form of legal obligation where the obligation is unilateral and self-imposed, or something like that.
.
.
I always got the feeling that people were skeptical/prejudiced about/against the promise simply because of its name, as if it would sound naive to accept it because it would be like "believing" in a personal guarantee. But really, I haven't informed myself sufficiently to know the grounds for skepticism.


Does any of that really matter? Let's suppose one day, Microsoft decides to unilaterally go back on their legally binding promise. Who has the money to sue them and can they guarantee the court won't just invalidate the promise?

People were/are skeptical/prejudice of the promise, not because of the name, but because of who made it and their history. If Google were to make a promise of any sort, people would tend to believe it. In this case, it's Microsoft and can we really trust any of their promises?

Reply Parent Score: 3