
Oracle thinks you can copyright a programming language, Google disagrees - ukdm
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/13/2944440/google-oracle-lawsuit-programming-language-copyright
======
nickm12
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.

~~~
luriel
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.

~~~
gaius
... 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.

~~~
icebraining
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.

------
btilly
This will be an interesting case. I'm a non-lawyer, but
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-
Comparis...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-
Comparison_test) 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.

------
tangue
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Institute_lawsuit_with_World_Programming)

This definition sounds reasonable to me.

~~~
macmac
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.

------
dunham
So, now that Oracle has asserted this, are they going to pay IBM for their use
of the SQL language?

~~~
SoftwareMaven
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_?

~~~
luriel
Isn't that basically what SCO tried not long ago?

~~~
rst
Same law firm too, at least in part --- Boies, Schiller & Flexner represented
the plaintiffs in both lawsuits.

------
orbitingpluto
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)

------
andjones
I am not clear if the Klingon example was the author's (Matt Macari) or that
was used by the Oracle lawyers.

Clarification?

~~~
elwin
The article links to Oracle's argument, which does not mention Klingon.

------
DaNmarner
I sincerely hope Oracle win this one. Then the world will have no more excuse
to continue using Java.

~~~
drucken
Indeed. Perhaps this is the primary reason why Go was invented.

------
bartl
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.

------
vitno
Oracle contends that programming languages should be afforded the same
protection as any unique language

um... they don't get any. Look up Loglan vs Lojban.

~~~
drucken
Those are artificial human languages...

------
bigtech
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?

~~~
wmf
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.

------
maeon3
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.

~~~
wmf
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.

