[wtallis]

> I think rather, it's on you to explain why the software industry doesn't have to respect property laws like every other industry.

Those "property laws" you allude to don't cover software. Software is covered by separate laws that are designed to function similarly in many ways, but the differences are real.

> The industry wouldn't have to grind to a halt if it had been respecting those rights from the beginning.

There's no legal precedent establishing the existence of those rights, and quite a bit to the contrary.

> But if someone in the software industry wants to protect their IP, they should have those rights, just like any other inventor/writer in any other industry.

No. Copyright doesn't apply to every kind of idea or writing. This has been explained elsewhere in this thread, and in most previous discussions about this case.

[anon1m0us]

Yes they do cover software. Software is patentable: https://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html

Software is copyrightable: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-register-copyrig...

The precedents establishing those rights are long, they go back decades. You really don't have the facts.

I didn't say these rights extend to every kind of idea or writing. I said software writers and inventors should have the same rights as writers and inventors in any other industry.

Really, I ask this in all seriousness, why shouldn't software writers have rights over what they write? Why are words in software different than those in books or movies? Why shouldn't inventors of software have the same rights as inventors of mechanical devices?

[wtallis]

If you're repeatedly saying "property rights" and you mean to encompass common law property rights, copyright, and patent rights in a discussion where the differences between those are relevant, then you really shouldn't accuse anyone of not having the facts. You're being deliberately obtuse and unclear. Go remind yourself of the rules here, especially:

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Knowingly glossing over important distinctions is not appropriate.

[anon1m0us]

I don't mean to do anything that I am not doing. I am saying, there is property owned by one company being appropriated for use by another company without respecting the compensation requirements specified by the owner of that property. Period.

That is illegal. Google intentionally committed that illegal act due to the financial incentive. Sun explicitly told Google they cannot do that. Google did it anyway. Now, Google should have to make amends.

That is exactly what I am saying. It is exactly what I have been saying. You are saying I'm saying something else or saying what I have said isn't the case, but provided no evidence to support that.

I have repeatedly provided evidence that what I am saying is true. You have provided no evidence to support your case.

I'm not glossing over any distinctions. You are saying there are distinctions, but you are not saying what those distinctions are. You are saying there is common law property and other kinds of property and that is relevant, but I am saying, the laws governing the kind of property Google appropriated for their own financial gain is exactly the kind of property that is governed by the laws I have stated, specifically copyright law and patent law.

For some reason, you are claiming those laws don't apply or something like that. I'm not sure why you believe that, but the court precedents have already been set to indicate that they do.

Clearly, the courts are debating this already because someone agrees with you and someone agrees with me.

What I do know, is that Google has flagrantly broken copyright law to their own ends since their inception. They have copied books. They have copied newspapers. They have copied people's private healthcare information.

Google does not respect people's rights to their property and intellectual property is property, regardless of what you are saying about common law property. Yes, I agree that "intellectual property" under the law is distinct from "real property" under the law in the form of land or real estate, however, I am not claiming Google broke those laws. I am claiming Google broke Intellectual Property Laws and they have done that -- very clearly -- many, many times.

I hope the Supreme Court, once and for all, puts Google in their place and says, "No, Google, You do not have the right to break the law simply because you want to."

[perl4ever]

I can buy aftermarket parts for my car that are designed to be substituted for OEM. The aspects that form the interface to the rest of the vehicle seem like the physical equivalent of an API (of course if the parts have electronics, then there might be a software API involved too).

So, I ask you, why shouldn't inventors of software have the same rights as inventors of mechanical devices?