Imagine you’re mugged. The thief takes all your cash – and vamooses.
The police (God bless them) catch the guy. And off to court you go – to ensure the larcenist receives what he’s judicially due.
And in court, in his defense, the thief asserts:
“If you punish me for stealing money – people will stop making money for me to steal.”
Your jaw – and the jaws of everyone else in the room with an IQ above nine – would be on the floor.
This mandible-lowering inanity is precisely the argument Google is about to make before the Supreme Court.
Google is arguing that if they can’t steal Oracle’s Java computer code – people will stop making things like Oracle’s Java for Google to steal.
How stupid is that?
Here briefly is the case in question.
“(A) current legal case within the United States related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centers on the use of parts of the Java programming language’s application programming interfaces (APIs), which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has admitted to using the APIs….”
Stop right there.
Google admits they used Oracle’s Java. In fact, Google used 11,500 lines of Oracle’s Java code.
Google and Oracle were negotiating terms for licenses for Google’s use of Oracle’s 11,500 lines of Java code. Until one day Google…just stopped negotiating.
Google then released its Android OS. With Oracle’s 11,500 lines of Java – but without any licenses to use it.
And Oracle’s decade-long lawsuit ensued – which has now arrived before the Supreme Court.
Let us briefly examine human nature, shall we?
Computer company Sun Microsystems spent a LOT of time, effort and money creating and developing Java.
Oracle then spent a LOT of money purchasing Sun Microsystems – and with it Sun’s Java. And has since spent lots of time, effort and money maintaining and updating it.
Oracle needs to make up the money they’ve spent acquiring Sun and maintaining Java. Because duh. And one way they look to do that – is licensing Java.
If the Supreme Court legalizes Google’s mass heist – it begs a question:
Why would anyone like Oracle and Sun spend all their time, effort and money developing and maintaining things like Java – if thieves like Google can then simply steal them?
Hint: No one would. No new things would ever again be made. Because duh.
Why go to all the time, trouble and expense of creating – if your creations are destined to be stolen?
You wouldn’t. No one would. Because human nature. Which remains fixed – and immutable.
Google is asking SCOTUS to overturn a perfectly sane and rational lower court decision in Oracle’s favor.
But what Google is really looking to dump – is reality.
Google wants SCOTUS to rule against human nature.
This has become an all-thieves-on-deck situation. Burglars in the tech, legal and media sectors – are rushing to the defense of Thief Google.
“Tech industry and legal luminaries filed amicus briefs urging the high court to take this case.
“A filing on behalf of Google by ’78 computer scientists, engineers, and professors who are pioneering and influential figures in the computer industry’ argued that the matter is ‘exceptionally important’ for its wide-ranging potential consequences.
“They said the lower court’s ruling misunderstands the issue and will chill innovation altogether, ultimately harming consumers as well as ‘the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’”
Thief-to-English translation: “If you don’t let Google steal – people will stop making things for all of us to steal.”
Which is, of course, patently absurd.
If you want anyone to make anything worth anything – you must protect from theft those things once they’re made.
Google and their fellow thieves – are pretending the exact opposite is true. That people will only continue to make things – if Google and their fellow thieves are then allowed to steal them.
Which is, of course, patently absurd.
And Google and their fellow thieves – are asking the Supreme Court to ratify and codify their idiocy.
God help us all if the Court does.
This first appeared in Red State.