

Oracle: why 9 lines of rangeCheck code is copyright infringement - grellas
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120802030811156

======
Cushman
> 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.

~~~
kalleboo
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?

~~~
avar
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.

------
michaelhoffman
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--

[http://www.i-programmer.info/news/193-android/4224-oracle-v-...](http://www.i-programmer.info/news/193-android/4224-oracle-
v-google-judge-is-a-programmer.html)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The judge was even more scathing in the judgement on this particular point but
I can't seem to Google up the PDF where he says it.

------
Zenst
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.

------
dspeyer
I thought Oracle had agreed to $0 in damages for the rangeCheck copyright
infringement (
[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228298/Oracle_agrees...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228298/Oracle_agrees_to_zero_damages_in_Google_lawsuit_eyes_appeal)
) 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?

------
keymone
so is "int i;" in my programs a copyright infringement?

------
quink
I just thought of an awful analogy:

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.

------
batgaijin
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.

~~~
magicalist
1) PJ hasn't been anonymous for years now.

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 :).

~~~
batgaijin
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.

~~~
logjam
> ...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.

~~~
batgaijin
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.

~~~
thaumaturgy
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...](http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-
Byfield-s-Blog/Eulogy-for-Groklaw)) 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?

~~~
batgaijin
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.

~~~
thaumaturgy
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.)

