The Supreme Court wouldn't hear the case NOW. But you can bet that whoever loses, they will appeal it to the Appellate Court, and after that will try again with the Supreme Court. Whether the Court will ever hear it is hard to say. It may be that the Court simply wanted the litigation to be flushed out a bit more.

move to c# with roselyn

EWWW!!!! You named the c word! Shame on you!

how so?C# is by far great language, in 4 years my habit of twisting keyboard when u wanna make desktop app on windows i found this language are the most cost and time efficient..

that's the problem "Windows". It is mostly for Windows.

well all my clients never asking can it deployed on linux..

It is a proprietary language owned by american monopolistic anti-consumer Microsoft.

Not a global standard. Microsoft can do whatever they want with the language and no one can say anything about it.

It is also optimized for Windows and encourage developers to use Windows specific products such as ugly nonstandard C++/CX.

Not to mention the major performance issues the language have by design. ugh!

it's standardize by EICMA isn't?and enlighten me about all this performance issues u;re talking about?

Oracle and MPAA continue to fight for the title of most hated company.

Really? Because Oracle gives away more software to the public than pretty much any IT company out there. At least as much as Google, if not more. Software like MySQL, VirtualBox and Oracle's Linux distro are widely used on servers all over the world and for free.

It's also worth noting that Oracle pretty much never goes after regular people when they break copyright laws. Like... never. When was the last time you every heard of Oracle taking some poor schlub to court for pirating one of their products? Never.

The only time they every do that is when some other massive company also with lots of money who can afford to pay Oracle for their products does some shady stuff.

So, lets drop the hyperbole here. There are WAY more evil corporations than Oracle. Hell, there are way more evil SOFTWARE companies than Oracle. And Larry Ellison is pretty much Tony Stark incarnate.

lol, weak. mysql, way to kill that off. open office, same thing. i should thank oracle for my gifts??? hahah, larry ellison pretty much has only you fooled...

Dude, seriously? You obviously know nothing about software development. MySQL is used in like half the linux servers on the planet. Why do you think LA*M*P stacks are so popular!?

You're a classic internet troll. Congrats.

They can take Java and shove it, with all that bloatware.

Erm.. Java is extremely popular on the development side and probably half of everything you own runs Java ... including... ANDROID.... which is the whole reason for this law suit.

If "probably half of everything you own runs Java ... including... ANDROID...." why not sue all those companies that sell the products that use Java? Oracle are just bitter Google took something from them, as the billions of products that use Java, and made it obscenely profitable, thus wanting a piece of it. I don't blame them thou.

The whole point is that Android does _not_ run Java. It uses the same API declarations but with a custom implementation that does not even involve Java bytecode.

Consider. Most operating systems afford the ability to create a window, either on the desktop or fullscreen, to host an application. The declaration of the api method that performs that task behind the scenes might be something like

CreateWindow(args, ...)

The code that implements that method though will normally be completely different for all systems, as it is in the case of the Java VM and Android Dalvik.

Oracle is basically claiming that Google shouldn't be allowed to name the methods in their API the same as the methods in the Java API, even though those methods do something completely different on a completely different operating system.

The reason most computer experts don't support this is because if an API that used the same declarations of an existing API infringed some sort of copyright that would mean that people would have to intentionally design obtuse API's to avoid infringing existing API's. Nowadays these API's are a form of object orientated design, the designs that follow from an OOD process are emergent patterns. Oracle's claim borders on an attempt to copyright generic computer science techniques.

What do you mean by bloatware? Java is a language with huge set of system libraries. Your program will load only the required libraries based on the functionality. Where is bloatware?

I am not a noob user, but many people are. When they install the update to java, or a fresh install, there is a check box that gives you bloat ware. The novice use just clicks next. That's the bloat ware.

Its easy for me to avoid, but when I got dozens of family members asking for help because ask is now their search engine, it gets old trying to explain to them what to do. I understand its all about ad revenue, but damn this crap sucks.

I know there is lot of crapware bundled with installers on Windows. I am no fan of Windows, I use Linux. There is no such issue on Linux. Installing Oracle Java is as simple as unzipping the downloaded Zip file. The other option is OpenJDK that one can install from standard repositories.

Does this mean database schema are protected by copyright as well?

In what way is a database schema like an API? Me thinks you don't know what you're talking about.

Are they actually all that different...? Both are mainly just describing the names and layout of data. For a database schema, it's the layout of tables. For an API, it's the layout of structures and function parameters.

Seems it wouldn't be that hard to convert an API for a java library to a (rather complex) DB schema and back...

Sorry, an API has absolutely nothing to do with the layout of data in a database. If anything in IT has remained constant from day one, it's the distinction between code and data.

Conceptually they are roughly the same thing.

An API defines the module (dll, exe, whatever) in which you will find a set of instructions identified by names (function names) and the order, data types, and precision of the parameters needed to execute a specific group of instructions in the module.

A schema defines the DB in which you will find a set of data identified by names (tables) and the order, data types, and the precision of the fields to be found in that DB.

That the instructions and the data are manipulated in different registers in the CPU doesn't affect their organization.

Sorry, I don't agree. I've been a developer for 40 years and started modeling databases in the mid 80s. An API provides functionality in a programming language. It's a toolbox. A database schema describes how data is organized. They are completely different things.

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make in your last statement.

My original point (if I didn't make it well enough) is that a ruling about whether or not an API can be copyrighted-- that ruling can't be extended to a database schema. Java is a language used to create applications. A database schema is arguable part of an application.

APIs and schemas are apples and oranges.

I think we're just arguing past each other, but... your statement that an API is a toolbox that "provides functionality" is just not true.

A library / code module provides functionality. A pure API is *not* executable code in any sense... it's data describing how to communicate between separate units of code. It's often written in code syntax out of convenience, but could just as well be XML (see WSDL used to describe web service interfaces.) And in that sense, it's not unreasonable to compare to a schema describing how to access your database.

It is absolutely true. The API is how you call executable code in the language that provides those APIs. APIs ARE a toolbox of pre-written routines for developers.

From: http://www.webopedia.com/TE...

API, an abbreviation of application program interface, is a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications. The API specifies how software components should interact and APIs are used when programming graphical user interface (GUI) components. A good API makes it easier to develop a program by providing all the building blocks. A programmer then puts the blocks together.

APi may call an executable code in any language, and in any stand-alone, blackboxed unit of code, it doesn't have to be the same language, and API itself doesn't even have to know what is called. API is a type of facade, and makes decoupling and modularity possible. And if API might be patented then let me patent getDate() and setTime() - I'll be a rich man. that is what Oracle is trying to pull.

An API is data. An API is a reference that describe functions, parameters, and return types not code. The code is the implementation of the API. While the API is the interface to the code.

Copyright should be on the code not the interface for it.

Maybe you can trademark an API. :-)

"that ruling -cant- be extended"

You assume that the court and lawyers will be talking knowledgeably about computer science definitions and inner workings. The ruling CAN be extended, even if it is in error. It is up to the computer science community to explain how that should not happen.

It doesn't take much technological knowledge to understand that there is a big difference between application-independent programming languages and application-specific schema definitions.

Are you confusing something like the SQL 92 specification with an arbitrary schema? Or 99/03/08/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Oracle has no copyright on the SQL XX specifications. These are ISO standards.

I am talking about arbitrary db schema.
"which ruled that APIs couldn’t be copyrighted because they were held to be functional elements of code rather than expressive statements of individual creativity or particular intent. "
this was overturned, right?
As far as I understood it, if I see a nice table layout in a licensed product, I would be lazy yes, but I would not be breaking the law if I copied it.

somewhat related example:
http://programmers.stackexc...

For the record, I have never had to do this, but I found it interesting that Copyright did not cover an app's schema.
At least, I thought.

What makes you think a schema cannot be copyrighted? It certainly can.

A recipe cannot be copyrighted nor can other bodies of facts. It seems like a schema would be just a bunch of facts about how to layout some data the same as a recipe is a bunch of facts for making a type of food.

I respectfully disagree.

Good question. A schema isn't an API though. But I don't know if the SC is smart enough to even know the difference.

they are too busy changing amendments...

-> If you look for extra money of about $50-$300 daily for doing simple work from comfort of your house for several h a day then try this -> <-

Larry Ellison is OVERWHELMINGLY greedy, I can't imagine Google was in any way surprised by this lawsuit.

C#

Oracle is just bitter. Google made a killing with Android and they want a piece of the pie. Understandable. When you install all those Java security patches it say "over 4 billion devices use Java", well, they have plenty to pick and sue accordingly, why Google? Well, picking Android is easier, more profitable and targeted thus making a case can be more structured than suing some obscure chinese brand that sells PoS smartphones.

The day Oracle bought Sun Microsystems was the day they unofficially killed Java.
I knew Oracle will litigate the Java API into oblivion.
Now Microsofts development of C# does not seem like such a bad idea.