Oracle thinks you can copyright a programming language, Google disagrees(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Oracle thinks you can copyright a programming language, Google disagrees
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/13/2944440/google-oracle-lawsuit-programming-language-copyright
13 comments
I think a reasonable default for IP law is to assume something isn't protected unless you can convince yourself that the protection is necessary as an incentive to create. Computer programmers have demonstrated, time and again, that they need absolutely no additional incentive to create a new programming language.
Thousands of years of history show that there is no need for so called "Intellectual Property" as an incentive, the greatest artists mankind has produce certainly didn't need it.
What the few hundred years of IP law have shown is that IP will be abused to perpetuate monopolies and stifle competition and creativity.
What the few hundred years of IP law have shown is that IP will be abused to perpetuate monopolies and stifle competition and creativity.
... because you couldn't reproduce a Rembrandt unless you happened to be, or hire, Rembrandt. In the old days, they didn't think about IP because they didn't have to: it was enforced by the laws of physical reality.
That's not really true - there were a many painters who could copy a Rembrandt that would look real to anyone but an expert.
The difference is that the reason people put so much value on a Rembrandt is not because they want to look at a nice painting but because of social signaling, and that can't be copied.
Most painters were not Rembrandt, though, and they still made a living even if they didn't provide that signal.
The difference is that the reason people put so much value on a Rembrandt is not because they want to look at a nice painting but because of social signaling, and that can't be copied.
Most painters were not Rembrandt, though, and they still made a living even if they didn't provide that signal.
Copy not reproduce. Still can't reproduce a Rembrandt. Original is a unique, limited, and (very) valuable object. Copies or representations in other media (e.g. photographs, jpegs) are practically unlimited. If they are copyrightable their value is almost entirely due to artificial scarcity and monopoly that copyright provids.
what about the drug industry? the movie industry?
Furthermore the idea that artists aren't motivated by profit is wrong. It is true that unlike -- say investment bankers -- they have intrinsic value for the work they are doing this does not negate the fact that they also want profit.
Furthermore the idea that artists aren't motivated by profit is wrong. It is true that unlike -- say investment bankers -- they have intrinsic value for the work they are doing this does not negate the fact that they also want profit.
The drug and movie industries are your best examples of healthy innovation and creativity? Really? They are some of the closer examples to cartels you will find anywhere.
There is also plenty of evidence that shows historically industries have done better when free of intellectual property. For details see this book by two respected economists that looked into the issue: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...
There is also plenty of evidence that shows historically industries have done better when free of intellectual property. For details see this book by two respected economists that looked into the issue: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...
Could you explain why they are cartels? I don't disagree (I say, for the benefit of my comments history); just looking for info.
Both are very aggressive towards anyone trying to disrupt their industry (eg., generic drugs or online distributions for example), and both use government power (regulations, patents, DMCA, etc.) to try to preserve their control over their market.
How pharma companies (ab)use patents is a great example, they will patent some drug, and then wait until the patent has almost expired, and then make the slightest modification (sometimes in something as basic as packaging for 'slow release' or whatever) and patent the same thing again.
How pharma companies (ab)use patents is a great example, they will patent some drug, and then wait until the patent has almost expired, and then make the slightest modification (sometimes in something as basic as packaging for 'slow release' or whatever) and patent the same thing again.
If no copyright law existed people would still write music and books.
Could they make a living at it, though?
Some of them could --- Jonathan Coulton, for instance, has been making a pretty good living over the last several years on his music, all of which has been freely available on the web since he was a fairly generic techie with a guitar and a hobby. (In part from live performances, and in part because most people _will_ buy stuff that they _could_ get for free if it's the most convenient thing to do.) Likewise Randall Munroe at XKCD (with revenue from tie-ins), etc.
How many of them could is impossible to estimate. But it's also worth remembering that for everyone who made a living at the by-now traditional, exclusive rights-based approach, there were quite a few wannabes trying to "break in" or "get discovered" by the industry gatekeepers, who weren't making a living at their stuff either.
How many of them could is impossible to estimate. But it's also worth remembering that for everyone who made a living at the by-now traditional, exclusive rights-based approach, there were quite a few wannabes trying to "break in" or "get discovered" by the industry gatekeepers, who weren't making a living at their stuff either.
Before copyright, people still made a living from music, books, art, etc. It was just a different model, patronage was common, the modern equivalent is probably something like kickstarter. Even under the current system, most artists don't make a living straight away, they have to gain recognition whilst doing something else before it becomes their full time job.
And this business model really isn't as alien as you might think, many industries require deposits, milestone based payment, etc.
However, despite having been corrupted by greedy entities into a parody of it's original purpose, copyright has undeniably been beneficial to western culture over the past 100 years.
I believe there will be a grand bargain at some point, where citizens will be asked how long a copyright should last for, and an agreement will be reached. "pirating" will become something that is seen as morally wrong by society (at the moment most people see it as "a bit naughty" at worst).
How long it will take for the corporations to give up on copyrights that last more than a human lifetime is difficult to say. It is surprising to me that americans are willing to put up with a system which means that the only video of martin luther kings i have a dream speech will likely never enter the public domain.
And this business model really isn't as alien as you might think, many industries require deposits, milestone based payment, etc.
However, despite having been corrupted by greedy entities into a parody of it's original purpose, copyright has undeniably been beneficial to western culture over the past 100 years.
I believe there will be a grand bargain at some point, where citizens will be asked how long a copyright should last for, and an agreement will be reached. "pirating" will become something that is seen as morally wrong by society (at the moment most people see it as "a bit naughty" at worst).
How long it will take for the corporations to give up on copyrights that last more than a human lifetime is difficult to say. It is surprising to me that americans are willing to put up with a system which means that the only video of martin luther kings i have a dream speech will likely never enter the public domain.
>"pirating" will become something that is seen as morally wrong by society
Quite the opposite. Society will wake up and realize that sharing information, culture and art is the farthest thing from "morally wrong". Sharing is probably one of, if not the most universally ethical action a human being can undertake. You will be hard pressed to find a culture - modern or historical - where this is not the case.
It is sickening how far the - for a lack of a more appropriate word - propaganda of the copyright industry has twisted society's most basic perception of morality, though I must applaud them for their efficiency in spreading their misguided beliefs.
It is not that we, as humanity, will one day realize that sharing - quite probably the very act that brought us this far - is something evil that needs to be stopped. We will wake up, and realize in disgust how a single industry controlled our shared heritage for almost 5 centuries, and declare that this mistake must not be repeated - that art, culture and information cannot be owned by anyone, and must be free for everyone to access, process and hand on. That will be the day we finally get rid of copyright, of patents, and other forms of nonsensical "Intellectual Property", passing on to our children how this was one of the worst mistakes in our history.
I look forward to that day, and let me say with confidence that we will one day arrive at it. You cannot suppress human nature, just as much as you cannot bring order into chaos.
Quite the opposite. Society will wake up and realize that sharing information, culture and art is the farthest thing from "morally wrong". Sharing is probably one of, if not the most universally ethical action a human being can undertake. You will be hard pressed to find a culture - modern or historical - where this is not the case.
It is sickening how far the - for a lack of a more appropriate word - propaganda of the copyright industry has twisted society's most basic perception of morality, though I must applaud them for their efficiency in spreading their misguided beliefs.
It is not that we, as humanity, will one day realize that sharing - quite probably the very act that brought us this far - is something evil that needs to be stopped. We will wake up, and realize in disgust how a single industry controlled our shared heritage for almost 5 centuries, and declare that this mistake must not be repeated - that art, culture and information cannot be owned by anyone, and must be free for everyone to access, process and hand on. That will be the day we finally get rid of copyright, of patents, and other forms of nonsensical "Intellectual Property", passing on to our children how this was one of the worst mistakes in our history.
I look forward to that day, and let me say with confidence that we will one day arrive at it. You cannot suppress human nature, just as much as you cannot bring order into chaos.
I don't think the creative industry overall has been an extremely profitable one for artists. Through out history artists have created because that's what they liked doing. Only the best and most popular ones usually got the recognition and some money. It's just hard to monetize art unless it also has a practical purpose.
That's going to be a problem as we approach a world where basic human needs are easily met.
Not really. As basic human needs become more easily met, the cost of them is going to fall, leaving more money left over for intellectual and aesthetic goods. The next step after 90% of the population working in agriculture to 90% of the population working in industry to 90% of the population working in the service sector is going to be 90% of the population creating essentially intellectual and aesthetic goods.
..are they entitled to? To trot out the old Heinlein quote:
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
-- Life-Line (1939)I can't agree more! Although I support the idea of paying someone for their hard work, even if it was something of creative artistry. (Time is still money, even if it was spent dreaming of characters in a play, or colors on a canvas) I do NOT agree that we have now set some sort of "bar" for artists/actors/musicians HAVING to become filthy rich for choosing those careers and we can NEVER progress beyond that point.
The makers of horse shoes, sued Henry Ford for putting them out of business. We may laugh at this, but isn't this the same thing we see going on today?
The makers of horse shoes, sued Henry Ford for putting them out of business. We may laugh at this, but isn't this the same thing we see going on today?
You couldn't make a living as a writer prior to the invention of the printing press--at least the only way you could do it was to get some individual or institution to pay you to write a book. In that case books were so expensive that there wasn't a big enough market to do so. Now the cost of a book is asymptotically headed to 0. Maybe you can't make a living from selling books in that world either.
Because they weren't writers back then as books/reading weren't a market. A writer would have to be a story tellers and you could certainly make money as a story teller.
Also, if you could physically write, you could make comfortable living as a scribe.
Also, if you could physically write, you could make comfortable living as a scribe.
Be that as it may, the invention of the printing press wasn't a watershed moment for writers everywhere. Getting a book published in print even now is quite an undertaking when you consider all the individuals, money, and infrastructure involved. The elimination of that infrastructure and closer coupling of content creators to their channels of distribution (i.e. fewer middlemen between them and publishing) will probably provide a bit more leverage to content creators, but it's still not clear how much, how fast, or what the cost will be to everybody else. It looks like we're still trying sorting that out, especially given the current suits around publishers and Apple.
During Charles Dickens' early career, his books had no copyright protection in America, and British copyright law could be evaded by just changing the protagonist's name to "Oliver Twiss". He was still able to become independently wealthy.
A major factor in that was the difficulty of copying in Dickens' day. His works were often published in serial form. His authorized agents were able to get a copy of each new chapter and have it on a boat to America while unauthorized copiers had to wait for the British publication, and then make copies from that.
By the time the copiers did that, and were able to get their copies to America, the authorized copy was already here, and most people who wanted to buy had already bought an authorized copy.
Even for works not in serial form, the authorized release had a big advantage, at least if the author was well known. Most sales occurred fairly soon after publication, and by the time copiers could buy a copy, and get it typeset (remember--this was all done by hand back then!) there weren't a lot of buyers left.
Stephen Breyer, who later went on to become a Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a famous law review article called "The Uneasy Case for Copyright" where he argued that copyright might be unnecessary because of the market advantage from being first that the author's authorized edition gets. There's more information on this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uneasy_Case_for_Copyright
Subsequent technological advances have pretty much obliterated the basis of that argument. Copying is so fast and easy now that being first gives very little advantage.
By the time the copiers did that, and were able to get their copies to America, the authorized copy was already here, and most people who wanted to buy had already bought an authorized copy.
Even for works not in serial form, the authorized release had a big advantage, at least if the author was well known. Most sales occurred fairly soon after publication, and by the time copiers could buy a copy, and get it typeset (remember--this was all done by hand back then!) there weren't a lot of buyers left.
Stephen Breyer, who later went on to become a Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a famous law review article called "The Uneasy Case for Copyright" where he argued that copyright might be unnecessary because of the market advantage from being first that the author's authorized edition gets. There's more information on this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uneasy_Case_for_Copyright
Subsequent technological advances have pretty much obliterated the basis of that argument. Copying is so fast and easy now that being first gives very little advantage.
Does it matter?
In any case, my guess is that the good ones probably still could.
In any case, my guess is that the good ones probably still could.
Exactly. In fact, one could argue based on this point that all of U.S. copyright law is being applied incorrectly; the Copyright Clause, sometimes more accurately described as the Progress Clause, of the Constitution gives Congress the ability:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
In what way is a programming language a writing or discovery? And, if one could determine it to be such, how does granting exclusive rights to its creator, "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?" I would argue that it doesn't, clearly, because it puts us in litigious, fundamentally useless situations like this.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
In what way is a programming language a writing or discovery? And, if one could determine it to be such, how does granting exclusive rights to its creator, "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?" I would argue that it doesn't, clearly, because it puts us in litigious, fundamentally useless situations like this.
This will be an interesting case. I'm a non-lawyer, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparis... would seem to me to be the correct legal test to use. Why? Because there is an abstraction layer between the code that implements a language (clearly copyrightable), and code written in that language (also copyrightable).
My limited, non-lawyerly, understanding of how this test has actually been used does not bode well for Oracle. The very first time that it was applied was Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc., and Computer Associates lost its infringement case on the basis of the fact that rewriting components to meet the exact same API as an existing program did not constitute copyright infringement.
I would think of a language as an API. Which puts Oracle on what was the losing side of that decision.
My limited, non-lawyerly, understanding of how this test has actually been used does not bode well for Oracle. The very first time that it was applied was Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc., and Computer Associates lost its infringement case on the basis of the fact that rewriting components to meet the exact same API as an existing program did not constitute copyright infringement.
I would think of a language as an API. Which puts Oracle on what was the losing side of that decision.
In Europe it's impossible to copyright a programming language "copyright is guided by the principle that copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Institute_lawsuit_with_Worl...
This definition sounds reasonable to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Institute_lawsuit_with_Worl...
This definition sounds reasonable to me.
Please note that the case was not appealed, certain questions were remanded to the European Court of Justice for it to decide sine the applicable rules are harmonized within the EU. Further the Advocate-General does not decide anything, he/she merely presents a recommendation to the Court. The actual decision is still pending and it is not publicly known when it will be available. In other words it is presently not known what the law is in the EU regarding the copyrightability of programming languages.
So, now that Oracle has asserted this, are they going to pay IBM for their use of the SQL language?
If Oracle is arguing it is the API that is copyright able and not the language itself, there may be no issue with SQL. It does add a big question to the C standard library, though. Can AT&T (or whoever owns the remnants of Bell Labs) start in on everybody?
Oh that would be glorious. I'd pay good money to see that hammer fall.
They already tried that against BSD back in the '90s.
The argument against copyright of a programming language is intrinsic to it's very name: language.
The good part about this is that if Oracle tries too hard to retain control, we'll end up with something else: a dead language (and it won't be taught in the Classics department)
The good part about this is that if Oracle tries too hard to retain control, we'll end up with something else: a dead language (and it won't be taught in the Classics department)
I am not clear if the Klingon example was the author's (Matt Macari) or that was used by the Oracle lawyers.
Clarification?
Clarification?
The article links to Oracle's argument, which does not mention Klingon.
Perhaps Loglan would have been a better example. http://www.lojban.org/tiki/The+Loglan-Lojban+Dispute
(Edit: I see vitno beat me to it.)
(Edit: I see vitno beat me to it.)
Java isn't a very original language. If Oracle were to win this one (God forbid), they'll have to pay a lot themselves to whoever Java got the ideas from.
Did miss something? I thought Oracle was claiming copyright infringement on Java code related to APIs and for patent infringement on specific techniques. Are they seriously claiming that use of the Java language itself is subject to copyright? Or is the judge going off on a tangent?
Sun long held that the Java standard libraries are inseparable from the language and VM (to prevent subsetting), so perhaps they've confused the judge into asking about languages when the case is really about APIs.
[deleted]
Would this give Oracle the ability to send a retroactive bill to Google for the great privilege of using a Java all these years under the assumption that Programming languages are not copyrightable?
Will new laws be retroactive? Does this mean the TRUE inventor gets a windfall? Does this mean James Gosling is a trillionaire? Who is awarded the rights of a language when new laws are created to copyright things that were previously not copyrighted? I guess it is he who can afford the most lawyers and the most justice. When previously non copyrighted things are copyrighted, the ownership should go to the parties involved in CREATING the language (gosling and sun micro), not the current holders of the language itself. It's like people are trading copyrights and patents as stocks in a stock market. We are trying to reward the content creators here. Not the lawyers and machine distributing it.
Will new laws be retroactive? Does this mean the TRUE inventor gets a windfall? Does this mean James Gosling is a trillionaire? Who is awarded the rights of a language when new laws are created to copyright things that were previously not copyrighted? I guess it is he who can afford the most lawyers and the most justice. When previously non copyrighted things are copyrighted, the ownership should go to the parties involved in CREATING the language (gosling and sun micro), not the current holders of the language itself. It's like people are trading copyrights and patents as stocks in a stock market. We are trying to reward the content creators here. Not the lawyers and machine distributing it.
I don't think they're talking about changing the law. I suspect Oracle's position is that programming languages (including Java) have been copyrightable all along.
Also, talking about "true inventors" is laughable in our work-for-hire industry.
Also, talking about "true inventors" is laughable in our work-for-hire industry.
Who's this "we" trying to reward content creators? Whose side do you think legislators are on? Copyright law in its current form exists mainly to make The Walt Disney Company money, after all they're the ones who paid for all the fucking laws.
[deleted](1)