> Josh Bloch, who wrote rangeCheck, testified that “[a]ny competent high school programmer could write” that method. RT 815:13-16 (Bloch). Even Oracle’s expert Dr. Mitchell conceded that “a good high school programmer” could write rangeCheck with guidance. RT 1316:24-25 (Mitchell).
Maybe this whole misunderstanding comes from the fact that Oracle just thinks programming is a lot harder than it is.
There isn't a misunderstanding, Oracle initially made a lot of other copyright and patent claims which were thrown out by the court. Now instead of just yielding the case they've fallen back on arguing that they should be awarded for the copying of a trivial function that any programmer could have written in 2 minutes.
>they should be awarded for the copying of a trivial function that any programmer could have written in 2 minutes //
The crucial question with copyright is "did they copy it". If it's a trivial portion of code that anyone could have written then why go out of your way (assuming the rest of it is not copied) to copy that particular part. If indeed it is not copied then Oracle will not be able to show it was, not even on the balance of probabilities [that's used in civil tort cases in the UK I gather, not sure of the measure applicable here].
It appears to be a bug in the statute if the test is whether the copied part is de minimis. The UK statute IIRC specifies that it must not be a 'significant part', which seems to lean more to qualitative considerations than quantitative ones.
He admitted to copying it. The reason he did so was because he intended to (and later did) contribute the code to Oracle's OpenJDK. He wanted to write it as if it was part of that package, and as such it would re-use the original version of that code. So he went "out of his way" to help Oracle and this is how they've repaid him.
I understand that the circumstances of an ex-employee contributing to an open source codebase and wanting to do things right by not unnecessarily duplicating code might be too much for your average jury, but it should be made clear to those who can understand that this is utterly appalling behaviour by Oracle, rather than a case of a sloppy Google employee getting away with a small amount of IP theft.
It's my understanding that copyright isn't primarily concerned with whether you were looking at the original when you produced the same work. It may be a factor in some cases, but the primary concern is similarity. If the works are the same, the latter work infringes regardless of access to the original. For example, if you write a song which is substantially similar to another song released some time before your own, you've infringed even if you'd never heard the prior work. edit: apparently I am mistaken[1] on this point. My apologies.
The point with this particular code is it's so obvious that many (most?) programmers would come up with the exact same code when given the task. It's part of the bigger picture that code isn't prose, it's instructions. How do you accomplish this task in this given system? First A, then B, then C. The first person to give some simple set of instructions should not be the only one allowed to.
> Even Oracle’s expert Dr. Mitchell conceded that “a good high school programmer” could write rangeCheck with guidance. RT 1316:24-25 (Mitchell).
Nonsense. In HS I wrote my first 3d graphics engine in Pascal on a 80286 with a Hercules graphics card and a monochrome monitor. As a sophomore. Of course I had guidance to get to that level but no programming student past intro would need any help for rangeCheck.
rangeCheck is trivial. Any non-programmer could have written it as the first thing they ever created if they had a book next to them.
At this point Oracle's claims are asinine. The whole thing would be laughable if it wasn't such a huge waste of time/money.
I agree that rangeCheck is trivial and needn't be protected, but I'm not sure I understand the "high school programmer" argument. A highschooler could also write Rebecca Black's "Friday" (indeed, one did), but it's still protected by copyright.
Is any code written by a High School student automatically uncopyrightable?
Well that's about as far from a valid analogy as you're likely to get. Rebecca Black's "Friday" is the entire work, and if you told any high school student "write me a song" they'd probably never come up with that exact song.
But something like the rangeCheck function is what you'd get if you asked a junior programmer "before you're going to access that datastructure make sure your within its range". Furthermore it's a completely irrelevant part of Android as a whole which gave Google no competitive advantage whatsoever.
Did you read the article? It explains this in detail. A couple of things here.
First, trivial bits of a work with minimal creative expression are not covered by copyright. This sort of thing is called "de minimis". You can't assert copyright, for example, on the words "You're welcome" just because they appeared in a work you've copyrighted. If you could, you'd certainly be rich, but that kind of rent seeking is a little beyond the purpose of copyright. Rebecca Black's "Friday", as awful as it may be, is full of creative expression. Google is arguing that rangeCheck is extremely minimal and perfunctory, kind of like if it were accused of copying the word "Partying" from Rebecca Black.
Second, IIRC Oracle is making a big deal out of this copying. Google was willing to pay a statuory fee for its indiscretion just like it would if it had actually used a trivial function from a high schooler, but Oracle is trying to make this function out to be a difficult and important part of Java, meaning it deserves a share of Google's profits.
No, of course not. The legal argument here is to determine if these lines fall under a de minimus exception. Quoting: "Courts find a use de minimis only if it is both quantitatively and qualitatively insignificant."
As there's only 9 lines of code, that's quantitatively small. The continual references to 'high school programmer' is to argue that it's also qualitatively small. Hence, de minimus.
The point is not that it could be written by a high schooler once, but that, given the same constraints, it could be written by a high schooler again without ever having seen the original.
If I could give you a vague description of "Friday" and you could immediately go and produce the exact lyrics and melody that Black did, I'd say it wouldn't deserve copyright protection either. Of course, "Friday" is far more complex than that.
You are correct, but I think in this case there are only so many different ways to write a range check function, and probably a few obvious ones. If you get 100 programmers to write a range check, there will be a lot more overlap than if you get 100 songwriters to write a chorus... even if they are teenagers.
They don't think that. They're just grasping at straws. Now that their efforts to show reasonable evidence that Google infringed on something substantial from them failed, they grasp at the last piece of remaining evidence and intend to ride this to the bitter end. And, of course, since it's all billable hours, the longer and stupider the argument becomes, the better. If they need to spend a year in the court arguing about if rangeCheck has enough characters to be copyrightable, it's all win for the lawyers, as the alternative is to admit the defeat and look for another client wanting to lose a copyright case. Why Oracle continues to pay for this circus is less understandable, but I guess they're just too committed to it to just say "OK, we give up, all our claims turned out to be nothing but baloney, thanks for playing". I guess they want even the tiniest bit of win to be able to claim they didn't do it for nothing.
The judge in this case writes computer programs, and has already made statements that indicate that this line of argument is going to be a loser. I don't know why Oracle is persisting.
> Judge: I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?
Then:
> Judge: rangeCheck! All it does is make sure the numbers you're inputting are within a range, and gives them some sort of exceptional treatment. That witness, when he said a high school student could do it--
Range checks on a input feild were one of many simple exercises in learning computer programming at educational institutes that pre-date Oracle. It is lamentable that education can be copyrighted and be used to sell popcorn.
I thought Oracle had agreed to $0 in damages for the rangeCheck copyright infringement ( http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228298/Oracle_agrees... ) so they could get on with appealing the API copyrightability and the patents. Why are they arguing about it now. Did I miss a step?
A builder is suing another builder in the next state over for stealing his plans and constructing a house following them.
Used by Oracle as evidence is that someone swung a hammer three times in the garage in a row in the same way someone else swung a hammer three times in a row, which produced two nails hammered in in exactly the same way.
Who supports Groklaw? What are the goals of the financial backers?
I hate Oracle as much as anyone else here, but I refuse to support Groklaw. Patents and copyrights are very important for the fate of mankind, and I will not start trusting anonymous reporting and support of Groklaw just because Oracle is getting called out as an asshole atm.
2) There are anonymous blog posts submitted to HN every day, which you appear to never have had a problem with. Why this one?
3) If you have an argument why "patents and copyrights are very important for the fate of mankind", and somehow this particular copyright case is a bellwether for that fate, make it. Otherwise there is no substance to your post, just blind assertions (and anonymous ones, at that :).
1). But is PJ actually writing these articles? Or is PJ just publishing them? Is that a stupid allegation to make, or are people scared of mentioning that?
Are other corporations actively supporting her? To what degree? Financially, for hosting the site? Sources? Evidence? Opinions?
2). None are held with the same esteem as Groklaw, which I know most people default to for current news about patents and copyrights.
What isn't being covered by Groklaw? I'm not smart enough to answer that, and I doubt few here are. Is that something to be worried about? We are all trusting an expert which few people here can call out.
3). You are right, there is nothing special about this copyright case in particular. However, I do have a problem with the level of trust that Groklaw receives from the rest of the community. I have supported everything Groklaw has done to this point; however, I am severely worried about the lack of competition when it comes to giving the same level of reporting. One perspective is always bad.
> ...I refuse to support Groklaw... will not start trusting anonymous reporting and support of Groklaw
> I have supported everything Groklaw has done to this point.
Kindly do two things for us: stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, and, instead of ineffectually waving your hands, point to specifically what Groklaw got wrong on this issue.
We are both in the room, I'm claiming there's a monster and you say there's nothing. The point is, neither of us really has a coherent argument with facts until the lights are turned on.
This blog needs a high level of transparency. If you can't imagine how Groklaw might be abused you are a fool.
OK. Your comment history up to this point hasn't been very trollish, so I'll assume you're actually trying to be straightforward here.
You seem to be making the claim that Groklaw is somehow worthy of scrutiny (which implies that they are somehow dangerous, or at least influential, but I'll get to that in a moment). You're also implying that Groklaw does not have a competitor.
In general, you're right that demanding transparency from politically influential organizations shouldn't require a burden of proof. However, I've seen no evidence that Groklaw is either politically influential or influential in matters of law. The principals behind Groklaw may be influential in their own professional rights, but Groklaw itself is not: Groklaw does not have a horse in this race. Do you think that the judge is reading Groklaw and thinking, "Hmm, good point"? Or that the attorneys for either side are doing the same? Or that the jurors are, which is strictly forbidden? I seriously doubt that Groklaw's analyses are having any impact on the case.
You're also wrong that Groklaw doesn't have a competitor, at least where this case is concerned. Groklaw has been publicly at odds with Ars Technica's Joe Mullin, even (in at least one instance that I remember) poking a little fun at him for getting the outcome of this case so wrong.
And, just last year, Groklaw came quite close to voluntarily shutting down (http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruc...) entirely because the SCO vs. Linux (et al) cases, which Groklaw was created to discuss, were pretty much all settled. Any suspicions of nefarious purposes on Groklaw's part would have to explain why Groklaw was so willing to just shut down at that point.
I don't disagree that it would be nice if there were more sites doing in-depth legal analyses of technical cases targeted for a layman audience. But, the demand for that is pretty small, and so is the supply: I expect that there aren't very many legal professionals that are at the top of the game at law and technology, and possess the ability and desire to publish in-depth analyses of cases where they aren't making any money.
So now the ball's in your court. Why, specifically, should we be questioning Groklaw's motives?
Hmm, I guess I can't dissuade the appearance of being a troll.
You are saying Groklaw is not influential politically or in matters of law. I agree. However, I think you are severly downplaying the influence Groklaw has on the people who read it.
My main fear is that Groklaw becomes the site that programmers go to not to find out the state of a case but to find out what opinion they should have about it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm afraid that people will say "I like company A's usage of patents/I dislike company B's usage of patents."
I'm a big proponent of patent nullification, especially in the area of algorithmic/cosmetic areas. Of course that's a vague definition, but I think most people will know what I mean. However, at this point, that is a very scary opinion to certain influential people.
Page rank is a patented aglorithmm.
Intellectual Ventures is a huge known patent troll.
I think bgC3, the new company of Bill Gates, is going to spearhead some very advanced patent trolling tactics (I have no evidence for this).
But right now the blogosphere is more or less just passively angry. People read what's going on in the news, argue for a bit and go have dinner. Almost no one is protesting because of patents.
It's a big deal. Over 50% of our Medicare obligated spending for the future (I think 38.6 trillion by the last count) is due to patents.
I guess I can't help being a troll when it comes to this subject, and I fucking despise the idea that Groklaw has the ear of so many programmers when they argue only in the short-term and in a reactive manner. I support what they do, but the factual tone limits them to being short-term and prevents them from making the vaguer strong claims that they should be making.
Groklaw is in the position to influence people on the most important subject of the 21st century, and I think they are doing a poor job of it as well as making whatever motives/resources might exist transparent.
Well, that's a pretty reasonable position. HN is pretty overwhelmingly opposed to software (and algorithmic) patents in general -- anything that any given professional in the field could be reasonably expected to develop on their own shouldn't be patented. This opinion of patents seems to extend beyond HN, throughout most of the programmer community. So I'm not sure that your concern that, "I like company A's usage of patents/I dislike company B's usage of patents" is valid.
Patent nullification is one of my favorite things, too, and I've heard quite a few other people argue either for that or for massive overhauls of the US PTO. But, that's all very expensive and somewhat politically suicidal, so at the moment going and having dinner seems to be about the best thing that anyone can do. That, and cheer on companies like Mojang when they choose to double down and destroy an offensive patent troll rather than settling (https://twitter.com/notch/status/226604081932812288).
As far as Groklaw goes ... I sympathize, but I think the organization you're looking for is the EFF. Groklaw was never really intended to be an activist organization; they just wanted to help the Linux community understand what was going on in the SCO case (and stomp them a bit publicly too). Groklaw doesn't seem to have been biased in favor of one particular company, to the extent that they cheer on that company for offensive use of patents against a competitor.
Groklaw is however providing a very valuable service in helping programmers better understand the law where it applies to patents, and I think we should appreciate that instead of criticizing them for not doing more. (Especially since nobody else does what they do as well as they do -- except maybe Grellas here on HN sometimes.)
> I guess I can't help being a troll when it comes to this subject, and I fucking despise the idea that Groklaw has the ear of so many programmers when they argue only in the short-term and in a reactive manner.
Groklaw and PJ are very opinionated, but it is not her or the site's fault if the people who read it choose to consume everything published there without using their own judgement. To be honest, they don't make any bones about how opinionated they are about the issues they cover.
> Groklaw is in the position to influence people on the most important subject of the 21st century, and I think they are doing a poor job of it as well as making whatever motives/resources might exist transparent.
They are one of the few sources that cover IP litigation in software in detail. They are biased and far from perfect, but I am glad they are there doing what they do. Over my years of reading them I have learned what to filter out and what to retain while reading the site. But that is my responsibility (as it is of others who read the site).
The site's mission statement makes for interesting reading, especially point number three:
"Third, it's an antiFUD site. We strive to present solid facts in rebuttal to attempts to smear FOSS with fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), as well as to correct well-meaning but inaccurate portrayals of Linux, GNU/Linux and the FOSS community."
They are honest and upfront about this agenda. If people choose to ignore that and take everything published there as the golden standard, it is certainly the fault of the reader.
> We are both in the room, I'm claiming there's a monster and you say there's nothing. The point is, neither of us really has a coherent argument with facts until the lights are turned on.
> I will not start trusting anonymous reporting and support of Groklaw just because Oracle is getting called out as an asshole atm.
And indeed, you shouldn't.
You should read Groklaw, though, because for almost a decade now, it has been providing coverage, analysis and explanations which are clear, to the point, mostly objective (in the sense that they apply the law, rather than a wishful thinking version of it), and that their predictions were mostly the ones later decided by courts.
And then decide if you trust specific arguments based on their merit, rather than their source.
Yes, but when Groklaw is held as THE site to go to, what happens? I don't have a problem with what Groklaw is doing, I have a problem with the fact that every single piece of substantial reporting on copyrights and patents from a certain perspective seems to come from Groklaw.
This site has a monopoly on a perspective that a lot of hackers hold, I don't think that should be ignored.
What else is there besides Groklaw? Where do you go for a secondary opinion?
Let's say, hypothetically, Company A started using patents/copyrights in a certain way and also happened to back Groklaw. Would you want to know? How would you check that?
Also, you do not mention any sources. You do not seem to try to connect with my opinion. You claim that the evidence is obvious and that any perceived flaws are simply of my imagination. That isn't exactly an intelligent response, and it's one you shouldn't be proud to share.
Type "groklaw " in Google, the first search match coming up is "groklaw pamela jones". Click on wiki link. So your premise about Groklaw being anonymous is likely false.
I lied, it wasn't 30 seconds research, more like 10 seconds.
If you don't like Groklaw then do your own research. PJ links to the sources in general, allowing you to read the articles and make up your own mind. Or bypass Groklaw and do your own research on the internet.
It is easy to diss a site - where is your proof to back up your concerns?
Maybe this whole misunderstanding comes from the fact that Oracle just thinks programming is a lot harder than it is.