Andrei's Google Talk

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:47:58 -0400, Russel Winder <russel at russel.org.uk>  
wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 11:01 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> If you copy something, there is usually evidence that you did so, like a
>> lack of development of your code (all of a sudden, a complete working
>> version was checked in!).  But besides that, if you have a track record  
>> of
>> never reading competitor's source, and the evidence supports that, then  
>> I
>> don't see how the judge cannot reverse the ruling.
>
> It's all down to balance of probabilities, at least in the UK.  Just
> because there is a history of not copying in the past doesn't
> necessarily mean you didn't this time.

True, but it does help in your claim.  If it only comes down to  
probabilities without considering the fact that someone did not have  
possession of the original, I'd call that a broken system.

>
>> This newsgroup would serve as good evidence that Walter does not look at
>> others' source.
>
> Actually I suspect not per se, but it might add weight to other
> evidence.

That's what I meant.

>
>> The fact that the code is available does not make it likely that you
>> copied it!  You can't just publish code and then claim any similar code
>> *must* be yours because it's impossible for someone not to look at your
>> code.  People aren't convicted on "possibilities" they are convicted on
>> proof.
>
> The interesting question is what constitutes proof.   I am not a lawyer
> so cannot give you a full answer but having been an expert witness on a
> fairly regular basis I can tell you most of these things are in the end
> settled by the two expert witnesses in their joint report -- at least in
> the UK.

Not a lawyer either, and I've never been involved in copyright  
infringement except as an observer of news.  But there must be *some*  
consideration for evidence that no originals were in the defendant's  
possession?

>
>> I'm not sure how Europe's copyright laws work, but in the US, if you
>> didn't copy it, it doesn't violate copyright law.  You can't copy
>> something that you don't have the original for, so even if your work
>> appears very similar (as code very often does -- styles are similar,
>> algorithms usually are the same, etc.), it's not copying unless you had
>> access to the source *AND* copied it.
>
> I suspect us having these sorts of debate is fairly fruitless unless we
> have some practicing copyright lawyers on the list who can advise us.
> When it comes to issues of these sort the gossip of programmers who have
> not had pupilage in copyright law in the jurisdiction you are operating
> in tends to be misdirected.

Maybe, but I'm fairly certain that Walter *has* consulted copyright  
lawyers about this, and his decision is a reflection of that discussion.   
Judging by that, I think we can assume via anecdotal evidence that his  
position is pretty solid.

>> If in Europe, the only evidence a judge looks at is if the code is
>> similar, I'm glad I don't live in Europe...
>
> Judges don't look at evidence such as this expert witnesses do.

I meant, if they don't consider evidence that the person did not possess  
at any time the original item that is alleged to be copied.  I didn't mean  
if the judge actually looks at the code side by side :)

> What is so good about the USA system that makes the various European
> systems something you wish to avoid?

My entire experience with what the European system consists of comes from  
this thread, that's all I'm basing my statement on :)  I did predicate my  
statement with a pretty large if (which I believe isn't true, but that's  
what people are telling me).

> What really worries me about exchanges such as this is that people make
> statements from position of insufficient knowledge, possibly in entirely
> good faith, but they nonetheless give people the wrong impression of
> reality.

Probably.  But why are you worried?  If we're just two morons discussing  
what we don't understand, who cares? :)

-Steve