On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:47:58 -0400, Russel Winder <rus...@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
