Upvoted because you shouldn't be downvoted into oblivion just for having an opinion contrary to the HN hivemind. It's okay to think Oracle should have won here. I disagree, but there are reasonable people on both sides.
The GP post seemed to start with some interesting information but then instead of adding enough substance to become a good comment, it petered out—and then it went straight to flamebait. It's correct to downvote flamebait.
Contrary opinions are welcome but need to come with substantive information. Contrarian comments that just go "nyah nyah nyah" at the majority end up having the same effects as outright trolling. It's tempting to do that, because it's frustrating to be surrounded by opponents (which is what holding a minority view on the internet feels like). It's part of maturing as a commenter to resist the urge to lash out in such situations—which is in your interests not to do, since it only discredits the minority truth even further.
In thought Oracle should have won this case as well and the opinion basically affirmed the reasoning but went the other way. The basis for Oracle winning was that copying the Java API for interoperability with developers rather than for existing software was copying for Java’s beauty rather than being purely functional.
Whenever this case came up on HN people outright refused to acknowledge that one’s intentions even mattered when copying an API.
> copying for Java’s beauty rather than being purely functional
How would "beauty" be defined here. In the context of copyright, it would seem to apply to aesthetic beauty, but I'm not sure that applies to code (despite all sorts of engineers using the metaphor for theirs or others work).
I would imagine it would hinge on the simplicity/elegance of the organized structure of the APIs? We tend to prescribe the term beauty to language features that are easier to use and implement in a novel way compared to the languages that came before.
I'm not sure that is the same use of the word "beauty" as used in copyrighted materials like books and art, since APIs are machine blueprints, whose primary and fundamental purpose is functional, not aesthetic.
Similarly, though a mechanical engineer might describe a particular gearbox design as beautiful doesn't make it copyrightable, since it's fundamental purpose is also not aesthetic.
The QWERTY layout isn't the best but everyone makes their keyboards the same layout. QWERTY isn't beautiful nor the most effective, it's functional and familiar.
