Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
Protecting a method of doing something as distinct from its implementation is ridiculous. And copyright is very ill-suited for its purpose. It applies to the source code as if it was a book. And the binary is of course derived from that source code.
|
Do note that the "ideas" implemented in software are the underlying algorithms, not the source code. The source code is the human readable expression of those ideas. Just as a book is an expression of a thesis, theme, or plot.The parallels are solid enough when it comes to copyright.
The "zeroes and ones" of binary aren't what gets protected.
The system as it stands, warts and all, protects new software ideas (algorithms, mostly) through 17-year patents and protects the expression of those ideas, new and old, via copyright. (And yes, copyrights are too long.)
Binary is just a translation of the source code so it is covered by the source copyright. There is nothing in binary that wasn't in the source. It is no different than a copyright of a spanish novel covering its english translation. Or french. Translation rights come from the original creation, not separately. It wouldn't make sense to protect only the translation and leave the original unprotected. (That used to happen before the Berne Convention.)
The Oracle/Google mess started out simple enough: Oracle suspected and later proved that Java Interpreter source code was directly used to create the Android interpreter. Google countered by saying they only used it to duplicate the APIs and that APIs aren't copyrightable. (Which, individually, might be true. Might not, though. At present the courts say they are.)
Lots of arguments, tons of time and money later, the appeals court took a step back and said "wait a minute. They copied all the APIs. And added nothing. And then used the copy as a substitute for the original." (In copyright law, that part "substitution" is critical. It is what allows parodies and critical analysis to exist.)
Heard of this one?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind_Done_Gone
There is an extensive body of copyright law about what is and isn't allowable under fair use. But for this one particular case (not a clean room copy) the precedents are clear that if the Java source code copyright is valid (and Google never claimed it wasn't: they have their own IP to protect in other areas) and if that source code was directly copied to produce the Google product (a finding of fact at the trial) then the court has to find Google liable or Copyright has no meaning. Not for software and not for anything. The court was unwilling to go there so the case moves on to the Supreme Court.
Right or wrong, that is the law as it exists.
Changes may come via new laws that supersede existing law but until that happens, that is the reality of the day.
It's worth remembering Microsoft lost a similar JAVA lawsuit years ago and in their case they were creating something new, not just a plain copy.
I see little chance of Google winning this one.
It's an interesting mess.
Made a bit more interesting because both players are equally sleazy.