

Google asks patent office to reexamine four Oracle patents - FlorianMueller
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/02/google-asks-patent-office-to-reexamine.html

======
eitland
google (according to Florian):

    
    
        Even if such files were identical to Oracle files
        (which they are not), their use is de minimis and 
        is not actionable."
    

Florian:

    
    
        This baffles all description. If you think about it,
        this "logic" would constitute a carte blanche for 
        everyone with a large software project to steal smaller
        parts of other people's creations. Google's less-than-
        one-percent-claim may very well be true, but this kind 
        of reasoning must be rejected altogether. Imagine a 
        music publisher who puts out a collection of 101 songs 
        and steals one or more of those songs from different 
        other companies,
    

Example is wrong:

The copying is not on "song" scope, but on a smaller scope.

If nobody was allowed to use a sentence that was ever used before, most
writers would face a serious problem.

~~~
FlorianMueller
Oracle presented 12 files to the court. I would consider a source code file to
a song. Just look at the files I presented here:
[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-
support...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-supports-
oracles-case.html)

I have updated the blog post on reexamination and dismissal of copyright
claims with an explanation concerning the scope of what was copied. So thanks
for raising the issue, even though you quoted selectively because you left out
the reference to 12 source files.

~~~
RickHull
> _I would consider a source code file to [be] a song._

To be fair, a song basically stands on its own. It may be part of a larger
work, like an album or symphony, but these things are collections more than
structures. The album does not fall apart if a song is omitted.

Songs themselves however are structures with dependencies: melody, harmony,
rhythm, phrases, riffs, etc. If you remove the melody or the rhythm, the song
is harmed in a much more fundamental way than an album or symphony would be by
the removal of a song.

In other words, albums are _composed of_ songs, but they are not _built on_
songs. Songs are _built on_ melody, rhythm, etc.

Now, back to source files. Applications are _built on_ source files. It is
tough to say what source files are _built on_ , but they are _composed of_
lines of code.

The analogy of a source file to a song breaks down, because the source file is
only useful because the application is built on it. If we are determined to
use this metaphor, applications are more analogous to songs, and source files
are more analagous to structural elements like melody and rhythm.

~~~
FlorianMueller
Even a melody is protected by copyright law if it's longer than X tones (X
depends on the jurisdiction).

------
6ren
By the time this is resolved, the smartphone platform will have been disrupted
by something even smaller and more convenient.

