Judge learns Java during Oracle v Google court battle to better prepare for the case. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47873205]Again, although the snippet is trivial, it [b]WAS[/b] copied, and that's still infringement.[/QUOTE] That shouldn't matter; it's so trivial that it shouldn't be afforded copyright protection, it's exactly the same as the rounded corners thing. Rounding corners on a rectangle wasn't new, unique, or innovative, nor was it something that Apple did first (maybe in the smartphone market, but not in general). Though Google's best case is likely with fair use I would think, being that it's arguably a factual work (that's how you do a range check, not much you could change) that had no impact on Oracle and was a tiny amount of code in comparison to the overall "work".

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47873317]That shouldn't matter; it's so trivial that it shouldn't be afforded copyright protection, it's exactly the same as the rounded corners thing.[/QUOTE] Eh, no. Again, how trivial the snippet is doesn't matter. It was copied from a GPL-licensed work and incorporated into Google's Apache-licensed codebase, in a file with a copyright notice attributing it to Google. That's still a violation. [QUOTE=DaMastez;47873317]Though Google's best case is likely with fair use I would think, being that it's arguably a factual work (that's how you do a range check, not much you could change) that had no impact on Oracle and was a tiny amount of code in comparison to the overall "work". [/QUOTE] So I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this defense would ever work. The copied code is not used for purposes of commentary, criticism, or parody, and is included unattributed, so I doubt that any court would rule it's fair use, regardless of how unsubstantial (as defined by fair use law) it is. Again, if they had written their own implementation of the range check, it would almost certainly look almost the same. However, it wouldn't have been copied, and that's the issue in the first place.

Just going to post this under gpl... Public boolean greaterThan(int first, int second){ If (first>second){return true;} return false; } I better not see anybody stealing my greaterThan API!

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47873205]Again, although the snippet is trivial, it [b]WAS[/b] copied, and that's still infringement.[/QUOTE] This is just in, coders have their own way of writing code, repeats of extremely simple shit is bound to happen.

[QUOTE=fenwick;47873735]Just going to post this under gpl... Public boolean greaterThan(int first, int second){ If (first>second){return true;} return false; } I better not see anybody stealing my greaterThan API![/QUOTE] Public boolean greaterThan(int a, int b){ If (a>b){return true;} return false; } Get rekt scrub.

[QUOTE=fenwick;47873735]Just going to post this under gpl... Public boolean greaterThan(int first, int second){ If (first>second){return true;} return false; } I better not see anybody stealing my greaterThan API![/QUOTE] Well first that wont even compile because you capitalized the P in public. Second the code is used in the exact same place in Google's "cleanroom" implementation as it is in OpenJDK. I don't strictly agree with the courts ruling, but I'm explaining that there's more nuance to the case than the code itself. And third, the API copyright situation and whether or not Google infringed in their implementation are basically two separate issues entirely. If the issue that we're having is the courts failing to understand technology well enough to rule on it, then I hope we can communicate why having copyrightable APIs without getting the details muddled ourselves

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47873416]So I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this defense would ever work. The copied code is not used for purposes of commentary, criticism, or parody, and is included unattributed, so I doubt that any court would rule it's fair use, regardless of how unsubstantial (as defined by fair use law) it is. Again, if they had written their own implementation of the range check, it would almost certainly look almost the same. However, it wouldn't have been copied, and that's the issue in the first place.[/QUOTE] Nor am I, but it's to my understanding that the "purpose and character of the use" is only one of the factors considered, and not being for one of those purposes does not necessarily equate to fair use not applying. It really doesn't help fair use is an extremely flexible exception to copyright that gives the courts a great deal of power in deciding if fair use applies for any given case.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47874316]Nor am I, but it's to my understanding that the "purpose and character of the use" is only one of the factors considered, and not being for one of those purposes does not necessarily equate to fair use not applying. It really doesn't help fair use is an extremely flexible exception to copyright that gives the courts a great deal of power in deciding if fair use applies for any given case.[/QUOTE] Fair use doesnt work on anything g commercial. If you make money from it, it can never be labelled under fair use. I'm not honestly sure where Android falls in that regard, but I would assume they gain profit from it in some respect.

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47873205]Again, although the snippet is trivial, it [b]WAS[/b] copied, and that's still infringement.[/QUOTE] I once copy pasted [b]i++;[/b] from someone else's source code. sue me

[QUOTE=RocketSnail;47871568]9 lines of code can be a; lot; of; logic; ;)[/QUOTE] Yeah, especially considering the name of said function. Checking the range of some variable is probably one of the most baffling problems in contemporary programming. Nitpicking at it's best.

[QUOTE=dgg;47875554]Fair use doesnt work on anything g commercial. If you make money from it, it can never be labelled under fair use.[/QUOTE] Not true (in the US at least), for example: [quote]The [US Supreme] Court held that the commercial or nonprofit educational purpose of a work is only one element of its purpose and character.[/quote] [URL]http://copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/campbell-acuff-1994.pdf[/URL]