Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the application-programming-INTERFACE dept.

The Obama administration has asked the United States Supreme Court to decline Google's appeal against a 2014 federal appeals court ruling finding copyright infringement of Oracle's Java code:

The case involves how much copyright protection should extend to the Java programing language. Oracle won a federal appeals court ruling last year that allows it to copyright parts of Java, whilst Google argues it should be free to use Java without paying a licencing fee. Google, which used Java to design its Android smartphone operating system, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court then asked the Obama administration in January for its opinion on whether it should take the case because the federal government has a strong interest. The Federal Trade Commission, for instance, must ensure companies do not break antitrust laws when claiming software copyright protection against each other.

According to Google, an Oracle victory would obstruct "an enormous amount of innovation" because software developers would not be able to freely build on each others' work. But Oracle says effective copyright protection is the key to software innovation.

In the court filing on Tuesday, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Google's argument that the code is not entitled to copyright protection lacks merit and did not need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Verrilli added that Google had raised important concerns about the effect that enforcement of Oracle's copyright could have on software development, but said those issues could be addressed via further proceedings on Google's separate "fair use" defence in San Francisco federal court.

Google v. Oracle, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-410


[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:41PM

    by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:41PM (#189275)

    > Although “software used for critical infrastructure” is already carved out from this prohibition (and so is software that is not “mass market software”, whatever that means),

    Voting machines aren't part of infrastructure, and can be sold in many markets.

    Uh-oh.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:50PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:50PM (#189278)

    I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Friday May 29 2015, @12:06AM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday May 29 2015, @12:06AM (#189410)

    Yes, of course the ability to accurately count votes isn't critical in a democracy. *flips table*

    I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:26AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:26AM (#189944)

      Counting votes with machines that use proprietary software is foolish, unethical, and dangerous. Most voting machines are like that, as well as just insecure.