

Microsoft foresees chaos if Google v. Oracle result stands - azylman
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/microsoft-foresees-chaos-if-google-v-oracle-result-stands/

======
csense
FUD.

The ruling [1] [2] draws a bright line between what is copyrightable and what
is not. As much as Microsoft would like to kill Wine and ReactOS, independent
implementation is always permissible [3].

As for Google's copying of "key source code:" An individual Google engineer
copied a nine-line function called rangeCheck(), which validated some
numerical parameters in the Java implementation of Timsort [4], from his
previous job at Sun. When Google became aware of the code's provenance, it was
removed from Android.

[1]
[http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120531172522...](http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120531172522459)

[2] <http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf>

[3] As far as copyright is concerned. Patents specifically forbid independent
implementation. The problems with software patents are a whole article in
themselves.

[4] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timsort>

~~~
barredo
(preface: You're not wrong. I'm just adding more links, some data, and quotes
to the conversation)

> "If I did, it was a mistake," Bloch said, "and I'm sorry I did it."

> The nine lines of rangeCheck code were removed from Android in version 4.0
> of the operating system.

[http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-
java-...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-java-
architect-likely-i-copied-sun-code-in-android)

\--

I know it's not good when linking to FOSS, but could not find another source:
[http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/andy-rubin-knew-that-
clea...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/andy-rubin-knew-that-clean-
room.html)

> Andy Rubin wrote:

> My reasoning is that either a) we'll partner with Sun as contemplated in our
> recent discussions or b) we'll take a license. I think a clean-room
> implementation is unlikely because of the team[']s prior knowledge, and it
> would be uncharacteristically aggressive of us to position ourselves against
> the industry.

> The only thing we give up is a little leverage in the discussions where the
> threat of a clean-room implementation is of some value.

~~~
csense
The code's status as "an innocent and inconsequential instance of copying in
the context of a massive number of lines of code," and its removal after its
history came to light, were noted by the judge in the ruling I cited. I'm
sorry if that wasn't clear.

The fact that it's in the ruling is important: Since Alsup articulated these
circumstances as judicial findings in the official case record, they will
definitely receive strong consideration in an appeal.

(At least in the US, appeals courts can only consider findings of fact that
have been found by a judge or jury in a lower court.)

------
cma
If it doesn't stand, wouldn't Microsoft's and Oracle's use of SQL be an
infringement on IBM's 'copyright' of SQL?

~~~
csense
An excellent question!

It would be really funny if the appeals court reversed, IBM sued Oracle into
oblivion (since SQL is the latter's flagship product), and then Microsoft and
Google teamed up with the open-source community for copyright reform.

~~~
zwass
But Microsoft is supporting Oracle here. It would be funny, but it would also
be a complete reversal on Microsoft's part. Seems unlikely.

------
albertoavila
It's a very evil standpoint for Microsoft, and should bring a couple of red
flags to great efforts like wine and mono.

Hopefully Oracle will lose the appeal and we will keep a little more of sanity
on the software world.

------
nnq
> Microsoft foresees

The funniest thing is in the title itself. Foreseeing is the exact thing
they've always been bad at - I tend to thing they even have a "screen for
foresight and reject if such ability is detected" policy on hiring interviews
or a corporate culture that explicitly forbids "foresight" :)

------
shmerl
The same story over and over - supporting the sickest copyright approaches in
the style of the evil empire. Microsoft is really a lost case.

------
jasonjei
Wouldn't Microsoft have benefited from the decision given that they were using
Java syntax, grammar, API, and library interfaces without properly
implementing Java, and were even sued by Sun for that?

<http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/sunwvmsft/Default.htm>

------
JulianMorrison
Microsoft continues to be a force for evil. And I am confirmed again in my
ideological decision to never, ever, buy anything of theirs again, even if
it's good. Because no matter if it's good, it will be inimical.

------
gpcz
Would Microsoft be a large corporation if copyright in the early 80s prevented
Compaq from copying the "structure, sequence, and organization" of the IBM
BIOS chip on the original IBM PC? They made the big money on DOS from selling
to clone manufacturers -- IBM paid a flat rate on MS-DOS.

------
RexRollman
"Microsoft foresees"

If Microsoft truly had foresight, they wouldn't be in the situation they are
in.

------
speeder
I think it is much more dangerous if Oracle wins.

You made your DWG clone? Get sued. Made a PDF clone? Sued! Made a
insertRandomProprietaryFileFormatHere clone? Sued! Made a Wine, DOSBOX, Mono,
any other sort of compatibility layer? Sued!!!

If Oracle manage to reverse and win this, it means that Oracle, Microsoft,
Adobe, Autodesk and Apple will just bash everyone else (including Open Source
stuff) to oblivion.

------
darkarmani
> Microsoft has dark visions of what will happen if Google's big courtroom win
> against Oracle holds up on appeal. If Google's position that APIs can't be
> copyrighted stands, it will "destabilize" the entire software industry,
> write Microsoft lawyers

Maybe Microsoft is using the wrong legal mechanism if this ruling will
destabilize the software industry? Maybe they are looking for trade secrets?

I don't really understand this argument that the law needs to change because
my business methods won't make as much money.

------
duaneb
In other news, Oracle copyrights.... the novel.

> "little respect for the creativity involved in Oracle's works"

Wasn't it just a timsort implementation? Surely Oracle didn't create that
originally.

EDIT: Yea, apparently Oracle ripped it off from Python. Not suggesting
copyright infringement, but there was no "creativity" involved.

~~~
afsina
Open JDK Implementation was provided by Joshua Bloch (He was a Google employee
until recently). And I would not call it a rip-off.

------
suyash
Hopefully Oracle will win it this time. More companies need to come in support
of Oracle, Google can't be infringing on all these copyrights like that.

~~~
csense
Google is a mighty monster that is eating the Internet. That concentration of
power makes me a little nervous, and it might be best for everyone in the long
run if they get taken down a peg or two.

But I suggest reading the judge's ruling [1], which is actually rather
entertaining, to get a sense of the actual circumstances of this case before
you try to swim against the tide without making any cogent arguments or citing
any facts.

[1] <http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf>

