Andrei's Google Talk

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:08:30 -0400, klickverbot <see at klickverbot.at> wrote:

> On 9/21/10 5:01 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> People aren't convicted on "possibilities" they are convicted on
>> proof.
>
> Okay, I suppose I was not as clear about my point as I hoped I would be:
>
> This is exactly what I wanted to say – if you want to sue somebody for  
> copying your code, it has to be proven that they took your code, not  
> just possible. But I don't see how just reading other people's code  
> would affect that – either you copied it, or you didn't.

Yeah, and if you never possessed the original, then you didn't :)  That is  
the point.  It's impossible to go back in time and observe someone not  
copying something, so we have to rely on evidence afterwards.  I'd find it  
very hard to believe that someone would be convicted on copying something  
they've never seen or possessed before they published their version.

> My point about the source being freely available on the internet was  
> just to illustrate that claiming »But, your honor, I didn't even read  
> that other piece of code« does not seem like a very strong defense to me  
> *if the court has already been convinced that you copied other code*,  
> e.g. by an expert's opinion.

AFAIK, this exact thing happened to Walter (although, it was for the  
opposing lawyers, not a judge).

I'd also find it hard to believe that that statement comes into play after  
the judge is convinced.  Also, consider that many professional developers  
have this philosophy, so it's not an unprecedented defense.

> I should also add that I am no lawyer, and I am generally only very  
> modestly experienced in legal issues, so please bear with me if my  
> questions don't make much sense – I just want to understand the reason  
> why Walter is so exceptionally afraid of looking at other projects.

I don't see how I can make it clearer.  You can't copy something you don't  
have or have never seen.  If it's well documented that you haven't had it  
or seen it, then any thing that seems like a copy still cannot be a copy.   
I think the situation you are thinking of where a judge is already  
convinced that copying occurred without considering if the person had the  
original just doesn't exist, unless you are talking about a corrupt judge.

I should say, I'm not a lawyer either, but I feel that I understand the  
ideas behind copyright (I am completely ignorant with court proceedings,  
but I'm just using common sense here).  My interpretations may be  
simplistic, but I don't see how you can argue that someone copied  
something without coming into contact with the original.

> To me, it seems a bit as if a researcher refused to keep himself  
> informed about scientific progress in the field he is working on, just  
> because he could be accused of stealing from other people (yes, that's a  
> weak analogy, I know).

This is completely different, science is based almost entirely on prior  
work.  Nobody sets out to test a radical new theory, they test theories of  
slight modifications from other scientists' work.  More importantly  
scientists who create physical entities can patent those entities.   
Patents have very different rules from copyright.

Also, from that standpoint, Walter most likely can read articles about  
ideas that other compiler developers write, or documentation, without  
reading the source code.  Remember, ideas are not copyrightable.

> Oh, and I am perfectly aware of the fact that there is no common  
> European jurisdiction in these matters, but to the best of my knowledge,  
> the laws regarding intellectual property are quite similar from a  
> high-level point of view in many European countries – and probably in  
> large contrast with US copyright laws, which is what I intended to hint  
> at.

No clue, I don't have any idea how any European judicial systems work.

-Steve