Shared posts

13 Jul 12:56

Understanding Circle Movement

by Rick Torbett

Roundabout Street SignLayer 4 is NOT about Dribble Penetration. You can dribble penetrate at any time in any offense. But that usually means the end of the offense.

Layer 4 in the Read & React is about how the offense continues if Dribble Penetration fails or Penetrate, Draw the Defense, and Pass does not produce a shot.

I don’t think most understand WHY we Circle Move on Dribble Penetration in the Read & React. Here’s why:

Elementary Reason: Receivers moving vs standing are harder to guard.

Advanced Reason: Defensive help and rotation moves in the opposite direction as Circle Movement.

Engineering Reason: What if the drive fails or what if the drive and pass fails to produce a scoring opportunity? The reason to Circle Move is to continue action with another Layer of the R&R if the drive fails. That requires everyone to be on SPOTS. (All layers START on spots and END on spots in order to have continuous linkage of layers or basketball actions.)

When I was first engineering the Read & React (8 years ago), we did not Circle Move when someone Dribble Penetrated. That produced a problem: The empty spot from where penetration occurred was being filled by the next player (due to the habit of Layer 1) and the spot behind the filler was being filled, etc. That meant some were moving on the perimeter while others were not. The spots that were not being filled were the highest percentage passing windows (the Natural Pitches). My solution was to require EVERYONE on the perimeter to move one spot in the direction of the drive: REACTORS (those without the ball) have one reaction for one read – this would be consistent with the design of Read & React.

Again, the spot left empty by the dribble penetrator is going to be filled because of Layer 1. So, training the habit of moving one spot in the direction of the penetration is mostly directed at those in the Natural Pitch direction – usually only one or two players. The Safety Valve is going to be filled thanks to Layer 1!

The icing on the cake of Circle Movement is: if everyone moves one spot, then the penetrator has an empty spot in which he/she can “bounce off” into in case their drive fails. (It’s the spot vacated by the Natural Pitch.) This allowed penetrators to choose a better option if their drive failed (rather than pick up the ball, make a bad pass, or force a bad shot. This allows the action to START on spots and END on spots – if the drive fails. From there, any new action can be chosen and our flow of attack can continue.

13 Jul 12:51

The 5 Keys to Fully Maximize Your Talent

by Guest Coach

by J.P. Clark, Boston Celtics, Assistant Skill Development

“I don’t want to be any good.”

“I am not interested in becoming the best I can become.”

“I want to be mediocre.”

Have you ever heard any of the above statements spoken from an aspiring player? The answer to that question is most likely no. These statements are never spoken, ever. You see, as players, really as humans, we all have an innate desire to be great; to become special. Deep down, we all want to live to our greatest potential; to become the best we can become. The question is how do we fully maximize our talents? How do we live to our full potential? Today, I am going to share with you The 5 Keys to Fully Maximize Your Talent.

Each one of us has been blessed with our own unique gifts and talents from God. Everyone of us has a special talent. These gifts and talents are what separates us as individuals. Each of our talents and gifts are different, but deep down, we are all the same. We would all like to live to our greatest potential and become the best we can become.

The reason I have selected this topic is because I have seen so many instances in which player X was not able to fully maximize his/her talent. I have seen this happen in high school, college, the NBADL, and most recently in the NBA. I will address the problem with a couple of suggestions that I have learned and observed from working with some of the best players and coaches in the world.

I know how much players want to excel in their specific sports. I know we all want to maximize our God-given talents and reach our highest potential. My hope is that this article gives you some direction in your quest of becoming the best player that you can become. My why in writing this article is simple, it’s to help you perform at your highest level in hopes of helping you reach your greatest potential as a player.

I will share with you some of the most valuable lessons that I have learned in hopes of helping you maximize every ounce of your athletic potential.

I will start off by saying, when it comes to fully maximizing your talent, of course having raw talent can help. Clearly, if you have been blessed with great athleticism, size and strength, you will have an advantage over your competition. However, being able to fully maximize your potential as a player has very little to do with your initial level of raw talent. Raw talent is nice, but there are countless stories of players with incredible potential who do not amount to much because of their lack of a work ethic, character issues, and their lack of discipline. The Talent Code Author Daniel Coyle sums it up perfectly, “Talent is determined far less by our genes and far more by our actions.”

Here are the 5 Keys to Maximizing All of Your Talent:

1. The Best Athletes Have a Well Defined “WHY”

The best players have a specific purpose. A personal mission statement. The best players know who they are and they know exactly what they want. The best players have a clear vision and have already set up their goals to make their dreams a reality. The best know WHY they play the game. The best know why they get out of bed every morning. Simon Sinek is the author of the book, “Start with WHY,” he commented in his book, “People who come to work with a clear sense of WHY are less prone to giving up after a few failures because they understand the greater cause.” Or as author Jon Gordon commented “Our purpose is our ultimate guidance system that provides us with direction for our lives. Purpose fuels us with passion, and this passion gives us confidence and vitality to go after our dreams.”  The best athletes know their WHY!

2. The Best Athletes Have a Plan of Action

Once you know your personal WHY, then the only question you have to ask is, HOW? How will I achieve my goals? How will I live up to my WHY? How will I go from good to great? The best athletes understand that whatever got them here will not get them to where their hopes/aspirations are. The best athletes come up with a detailed plan of how they will improve upon their strengths and weaknesses in order to achieve their goals. Remember, great ideas without a plan is delusion. Just like in a real game, we have to be able to execute the game plan to be successful! We must have a detailed game plan mapping out our road to success. The best have their goals written down and a plan of action to achieve them!

3. The Best Athletes Outwork the Competition

When you talk of work ethic, the perfect player example is one of our players, the ultimate competitor, Kevin Garnett. Kevin is fanatical about his daily routine, shooting the same shots from the same spots with the same movements every single day. As you can imagine, KG works extremely hard at all times. There are no days off, no plays off and certainly no practices off. The stories of KG during shoot around breaking a full sweat are widespread, but what people do not realize is it’s every single shoot around he’s in a full sweat. Tape/no tape, it doesn’t matter, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, it doesn’t matter. To KG, shootarounds are games and he must get himself in the exact positions and coverage situations that he will find himself in that night. And to do this realistically, KG must go game speed and this is how he treats every practice, every shoot around and every walk through. Coach Doc Rivers commented on KG when he first got to Boston, “You knew (Garnett) has great intensity. You didn’t know he had it full time on and off the floor. His intensity in shootarounds and practices spread to our entire team. Our shootarounds were phenomenal. They listened to every word. There was no talking. They were focused. That was all from Kevin Garnett and that changed our team.”  The best athletes outwork the competition.

4. The Best Athletes Believe in Themselves

This is the most important of the keys. The best athletes believe in themselves. They expect to go out and perform. “The best believe in themselves. I have a determination where I don’t think anybody I line up against, on any given night, will be able to out-will me, I just refuse to believe that,” said Kobe Bryant. The best athletes have a disciplined mind that allows them to believe in themselves even as negativity begins to set in. The best athletes believe in themselves by guarding their minds. The best athletes understand that by controlling your thoughts, you control your life. By controlling your life, everything in your life is simplified. By simplifying your life, you allow yourself to devote 100% focus to becoming the best player you can become. Remember as Henry Ford said, “Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you’re right.” We must make the conscious choice to believe in ourselves! The best athletes believe in themselves.

5. The Best Understand They Can’t do it Alone – Become Lifelong Learners

The best athletes know they can’t reach their full potential alone. The best know they will need constant help along the way. One of my favorite phrases from Coach Rivers is, “If you want to go fast go alone, if you want to go far go together.” The best players understand the value of seeking wisdom and direction from their mentors. The best submit to a life of lifelong learning, understanding they never will truly arrive. The best understand greatness is a lifelong mission. Maximizing your talent is about striving to become the best you that you can be. To be the best, you must fully commit to being a lifelong learner. The best understand they can’t do it alone. 

Remember, life will throw you a few curveballs along the journey. The key is to view life as an adventure. View setbacks as opportunities to learn and grow. Your  purpose must be greater than your challenges. Instead of focusing on your problems, focus on your purpose. See yourself as a hero in your journey and enjoy the process. Strive each and everyday to stretch yourself and grow. Spend time on your WHY, Plan out your action plan, believe in yourself and work as hard you can. Good luck!

This past season, J.P. served in a dual role with the Boston Celtics and their D-League affiliate, the Maine Red Claws. J.P. worked in player development with the Celtics and served as an Assistant Coach with the Red Claws. Prior to his time in Boston/Maine, JP spent both the 2009-10, 2010-11 seasons at the University of Central Florida serving as both a GA and also as the Assistant Director of Basketball Operations. Before UCF, J.P. spent the 2008-09 season as the Volunteer Director of Basketball Operations at Colgate University. J.P. started his coaching career off during the 2007-08 season as a student assistant at his alma mater, Flagler College.

He can be contacted at and followed on Twitter at @coachjpclark


13 Jul 12:44

Proving the skeptics wrong

by Seth Godin

"It'll never last..."

"Someone with her background will never make a go of this..."

"Are you kidding me?" "Pathetic! Delusional!"

"Social media is a fad, the iPad is a toy, you're never going to amount to anything..."

Here's the thing about proving skeptics wrong: They don't care. They won't learn. They will stay skeptics. The ones who said the airplane would never fly ignored the success of the Wright Bros. and went on to become skeptical of something else. And when they got onto an airplane, they didn't apologize to the engineers on their way in.

I used to have a list, and I kept it in my head, the list of people who rejected, who were skeptical, who stood in the way. What I discovered was that this wasn't the point of the work, and my goal wasn't actually to prove these folks wrong, it was only to do the work that was worth doing. So long ago I stopped keeping track. It's not about the skeptics. It's about the people who care about, support and enable.

Instead of working so hard to prove the skeptics wrong, it makes a lot more sense to delight the true believers. They deserve it, after all, and they're the ones that are going to spread the word for you.

13 Jul 12:40

Digital Portfolios: Revise, Reflect & Publish

by Catlin Tucker

At the end of each school year, I ask my students to select several different writing assignments produced throughout the year and edit those pieces to reflect their current ability. My hope is that they will see and  appreciate their own growth and development as writers in the process. These portfolios took the form of binders, until this year.

My class is almost entirely paperless now, which is why I decided to transition from a paper to a digital portfolio. Students write everything on Google docs and submit their work digitally, so it didn’t make sense for them to print out their work and create binders. Instead, I had them create a website and publish their revised work online.

In addition to digital writing, my students have created infographics, multimedia timelines, Google presentations and digital stories. I wanted all of these incredible pieces displayed on their websites.

As I embarked on this project, I had to:

  1. Decide what website creator they were going to use.
  2. Provide clear guidelines for the content.
  3. Explain how I would be assessing their work.

My first instinct was to make all of my students use the same website creator because that would be easiest for me. After some reflection, I decided not to control this element of the project as I did not want to limit their creativity. I explained that Google sites had a steeper learning curve but would work seamlessly with everything they had created using Google apps and YouTube. Conversely, Weebly is super simple to use, but it would be more challenging to embed their various digital pieces.

My students used a variety of website creators, so I offered technology trainings at lunch for the first 3 weeks of their work on this project. I dedicated days to using Wix, Google sites, Tumblr, and Weebly. At times, it was chaotic in my room. I often didn’t actually eat lunch, but I learned a ton troubleshooting with students.

For teachers considering a large scale digital project of any kind, I would recommend offering informal drop-in technology training/troubleshooting sessions. I would also suggest making short “how to” videos about using different tools to support students who get stuck working on their own.

Next, I created a list of the different types of pieces I wanted students to revise and publish on their website. Click here to view the document I shared with my students. In addition to the written and digital pieces, I asked students to write a series of blog posts chronicling their work and reflecting on the process of creating their portfolios.

Finally, I explained that I would be using voice comments instead of traditional hand written comments to assess their website and provide feedback. I wrote a blog post about “Using Voice Comments to with Google Docs for End of the Year Projects” which explains this approach.

The portfolios created were visually interesting and, overall, the content was impressive. I love that this assignment combined writing, editing, revising and reflecting with a digital media component. For teachers stressed about transitioning the Common Core, this project simultaneously addresses almost every writing standard! Below are a few of my favorite digital portfolios created this year. Just click on any of the images below to visit these student created websites!

Screen shot 2013-07-06 at 9.24.31 AM


Screen shot 2013-07-06 at 9.26.17 AM


Screen shot 2013-07-06 at 9.27.23 AM


Screen shot 2013-07-06 at 9.29.02 AM


If you have students create digital portfolios and have advice or tips for teachers, please share them!

09 Jul 18:15

Oracle and Google's disagreement on the notion of 'thin' (or 'weak') copyright protection for software

by Florian Mueller

On Friday Oracle's reply brief in its Android-Java copyright appeal against Google was published. I said in my first post that there's more stuff in it that's worth discussing. Here's a follow-up.

The parties disagree, obviously, on the breadth of copyright protection for software. Oracle's reply brief makes clear that they disagree not only on how broad or narrow the scope of protection is but also on the relevance to each particular level: copyrightability, infringement analysis, and fair use.

This is an important issue in the high-profile Android-Java case and far beyond. It matters to policy makers, legal professionals, and (last not least) software developers alike. It's really worth giving more thought, including a comparison with the meaning of "breadth" in connection with patent claims, which the first section will draw. After a high-level discussion of the differentiated meaning of breadth, let's look in the second part at the arguments Oracle and Google have exchanged in this regard (with a particular focus on their references to statutory law, case law, and commentary). In the final part I'll outline my position on the innovation policy question of what breadth (or narrowness) is desirable to afford just the right level of protection to software developers -- including, for example, mobile app developers. I have been fighting against counterproductive overprotection for some time (most recently in connection with the enforcement of standard-essential patents), but I also oppose underprotection.

The meaning of breadth -- and how it relates to strength

When it comes to the breadth of a patent claim, less is more and brevity is the soul of breadth. Every claim limitation is another hurdle for an infringement finding. A patent claim reading on a "mobile telephone with a touch screen" is shorter and broader -- in terms of its ability to cast a wide net for capturing infringements -- than one reading on a "mobile telephone with a touch screen and a pre-installed travel expenses manager application connected to an Internet server, characterized in that [etc.]". That's because a given claim is infringed only if each and every limitation is practiced by the accused technology.

The same logic also applies to certain types of copyright. If the courts in a given country routinely hold the copying of six consecutive musical notes to be an infringement, then they're more restrictive than a country in which it takes seven notes in a row to infringe and in which you can, as a result, copy six notes and steer clear of infringement by replacing any one of the seven notes of the original sequence.

Unfortunately, software copyright is more complicated than this. Intuitively one might be led to think that if a district court finds nine lines of code copyrightable, a body of 7,000 lines -- at issue in the very same litigation -- would be a no-brainer. Not so in Oracle v. Google. The nine-line rangeCheck function and a set of source files containing only a few dozen lines per file were deemed protected. 7,000 lines of declaring API code were not. Both decisions are being appealed.

In this case, the nine lines of code that were held protectable indeed constitute, relatively speaking, a broader right than the 7,000 lines. But what makes software copyright complicated is the idea/expression dichotomy. It's in the statute. 17 U.S.C. §102 is the statute defining the scope of copyrightable subject matter:

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works; [...]

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Some of what (a) giveth, (b) taketh. Software developers say they "write" code. And it is indeed copyrightable like literary works. But to what extent? Protecting ideas, systems, methods of operation etc. is not what copyright is meant to do. Some of this can be protected by patents if the criteria for patentability are met. Patents can be broader than copyright. They typically are.

The exceptions are needed to counter overbroad claims. In the 19th-century Baker v. Selden case, the author of a book on an accounting method wanted to own that method. In other words, he wanted copyright to be the equivalent of a financial business method patent (but without examination, and longer-lasting). This is a clear case of excessive breadth. If Oracle had claimed that its copyright in the Java documentation affords it a monopoly over a wide range of write-once-run-anywhere virtual machines with a Java-like set of characteristics at an abstract level, then Baker v. Selden would clearly apply.

Resolving the idea/expression dichotomy isn't easy for the courts. Ultimately, any copyrightable work consists of non-copyrightable smaller elements. A single musical note isn't copyrightable; but a sequence of musical notes is. None of the words used in this blog post is copyrightable; the post as a whole is. A pixel in a given color isn't copyrightable; a painting usually is. Basically, every copyrightable work is a structure, sequence and organization of non-copyrightable atoms.

In 1992, the Second Circuit's Computer Associates v. Altai ruling proposed the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test, which has been widely adopted since. It sounds very systematic: the first step, Abstraction, is about identifying which elements of an allegedly-copyrighted work are protectable; the second step, Filtration, removes the non-protectable elements so as to focus the third step, Comparison, on the protected elements (and not to be confused by similarities between an asserted work and an accused work that are due to non-protectable elements). But the ruling I just linked to merely describes these considerations and, at a high level, their application to the software at issue in that case -- and then states a conclusion. There would be a lot more clarity about this if every court using this test fully documented it every step of the way, such as in the form of color-coded source code printouts. This isn't done. And it wasn't done by Judge Alsup either. So we're just left with verbal -- and thus interpretable -- abstractions, filtrations, and comparisons.

In the context of breadth and strength of software copyright, the fact that non-protectable elements must be filtered out for the infringement analysis (which also includes the analysis of the "fair use" defense) is key. If we think of an asserted work by a software developer as a hierarchical structure, it means that there are parts that aren't protectable on their own. But the way they've been combined and arranged may be.

When analyzing the breadth/strength or thinness/weakness of software copyright, the first thing to do is to distinguish between the different steps: copyrightability; infringement in a narrow sense; fair use.

Generally, an intellectual property right is broader if there's a smaller combination of elements each of which must be infringed in order to find infringement on the bottom line. If, for example, the structure, sequence and organization of the Java APIs is found protected on its own, while the particular lines of declaring code are not, then that's a broader IPR than one involving both elements. For example, if Google had used the same SSO, but invented different names for each function, then it would still infringe the SSO, but not a combination of the SSO plus the names. But... this is copyright, not patents. For a patent, it's an item-by-item analysis. You infringe all, or if there's even one element you don't infringe, then you don't infringe the patent. For copyright, the comparison itself is more flexible, and more vague. You can claim that select parts of your copyrighted work (provided that a given part is copyrightable on its own) are infringed, so if you also own the names, you may have an infringement case against someone using the names under a different structure. And, very importantly, there are different degrees of similarity that are required at the infringement stage. The applicable degree depends on the specifics of a given case. The greater the degree of similarity that you have to prove, the easier for your opponent to defend by persuading a court or jury that despite some undeniable similarities there's enough of a difference to let him get away with what he's done.

Let's say someone translates a copyrighted article (such as this blog post) but also rearranges and rephrases parts of it, uses only some parts of it and adds some others of his own. There could still be a copyright infringement (though there wouldn't be a patent infringement if one or more claim elements are left out). So the standard of similarity -- as opposed to just the extent to which elements are filtered out for copyrightability purposes -- is key to the breadth/strength (or thinness/weakness) of software copyright. If 100% of an asserted work is deemed copyrightable, but the infringement standard is almost as strict as for a patent, then copyright is, in this case, weak/thin. It's weak/thin because of its limited ability to capture infringement -- even though the part of the asserted work found copyrightable is as fat/strong as it gets -- 100% of it.

If an infringement is found, the "fair use" defense usually comes up right away. Fair use is about weighing multiple factors, and the extent and scope of someone's copying influences the overall analysis. The closer someone is to literal copying, the harder it is for him to prevail on "fair use". This, too, has to do with the breadth/strength or thinness/weakness of software copyright with respect to the right holder's ability to prevail over accused infringers.

One final point on the meaning of "thin" or "weak": this is a relative concept, not an absolute one, so it depends on the comparison one has in mind. Relative to the degree of protection software can receive in the form of (potentially broad) patents, copyright is certainly "thin" or "weak". For literature there's no equivalent to a patent. Copyright is the only form of protection (apart from trademarks) availabile for it. But the aspect of software -- expressive code -- that is treated under U.S. copyright law like literary works enjoys a reasonable degree of protection.

The argument over "thin" (or "weak") software copyright in Oracle v. Google

There's a popular misbelief. Some believe, because they've been led to believe, that Oracle needs the appeals court to adopt an extremely broad scope of copyrightability -- basically, turning copyright into another kind of patent right in terms of breadth. But that's absolutely not true.

Just imagine, for a moment, that you're in Oracle's shoes. You have that Java licensing business and you want Google to respect the same rules that your ecosystem largely accepts. You want them to take a commercial license from you or to use it under the GPL free and open source software license (which you, or the company you've acquired, have made possible). In order to achieve this purpose, all you need is a sufficient scope of copyrightable subject matter. It has to be sufficient in terms of being enough stuff for Google to need a license. Of course, you'll try to prevail on as much as possible, like any other party to a dispute like this. But your ability to achieve your objectives does not hinge on a superbroad scope of copyrightability.

By contrast, Google needs more or less an affirmance of Judge Alsup's wholesale anti-copyrightability ruling. It needs some kind of software exceptionalism that makes software less than a second-class citizen in the realm of copyright. That's because Google uses the structure, sequence and organization of those Java APIs; and it uses the declaring code including all of the names. If, hypothetically speaking, Oracle prevailed on SSO, Google would need a license. If Oracle prevailed, still hypothetically speaking, only on the set of names, Google would need a license, too. Neither the district court nor the parties distinguished between more and less complex lines of declaring code in the sense of proposing different rulings based on complexity, but if we nevertheless imagined an outcome along those lines, there would likely still be too much copyrightable material here for Google to escape an infringement finding (and for it to be able to do without a license).

Google argues that Oracle's Harry Potter analogy doesn't make sense in a software copyright case. It says that software is, because of its functional nature, fundamentally less protectable by copyright than fictional literature. But it attributes this to its functional nature and fails to explain which software would remain copyrightable if the appeals court adopted its proposed set of rules.

Google makes a "thin" (or "weak") copyright argument with respect to all three stages of the analysis: copyrightability, infringement (in a narrow sense), fair use. It conflates those stages of the analysis throughout its responsive brief, and Oracle criticizes it for this in its reply brief. In particular, Oracle notes that Google points to Sega. Accolade. Here's the relevant passage from the Sega ruling:

"Borrowing from antitrust principles, Sega attempts to label Accolade a 'free rider' on its product development efforts. In Feist Publications, however, the Court unequivocally rejected the 'sweat of the brow' rationale for copyright protection. 111 S. Ct. at 1290-95. Under the Copyright Act, if a work is largely functional, it receives only weak protection. 'This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.' Id. at 1290 [...] Here, while the work may not be largely functional, it incorporates functional elements which do not merit protection. The equitable considerations involved weigh on the side of public access."

This paragraph is part of the "fair use" analysis in Sega. The "weak protection" quote from Feist v. Rural should also be read in context:

"This principle, known as the idea-expression or fact-expression dichotomy, applies to all works of authorship. As applied to a factual compilation, assuming the absence of original written expression, only the compiler's selection and arrangement may be protected; the raw facts may be copied at will. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art."

The words "thin" or "weak" don't appear in Feist, a copyrightability case. All that Feist says is that "the raw facts [in this case, telephone directory data] may be copied at will". The term "raw facts" means pre-existing, real-world data. None of the Java API code is comparable to such pre-existing, real-world data.

Google doesn't point to copyrightability case law that explicitly labels software copyright as "thin" or "weak". It quotes Berkeley Professor and EFF Vice Chairwoman Pamela Samuelson's writings, such as Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of Its Protection, which even admits that there are different positions in academia on whether software receives "thin" protection. As an example of a proponent of the "thin" protection theory, she quotes Professor Paul Goldstein's Infringement of Copyright in Computer Programs, which according to Professor Samuelson describes software as receiving "very thin" copyright protection. Remember what I said about the point of comparison? The abstract of Professor Goldstein's writing says this:

"Copyright, with its low standards, long term and thin layer of protection, is far from an appropriate vehicle for attracting optimal research and development investment to functional subject matter like computer software. Patent law, with its much higher standards and level of protection may be more appropriate, but is also far from perfect."

He doesn't say software copyright is thinner than other copyright. No, he says copyright itself is thin -- as compared to patents. Not compared to the protection afforded to other categories of copyrightable material.

Even Professor Samuelson acknowledges that there's disagreement on how thin copyright is: "Some commentators have been skeptical of the 'thin' protection doctrine, although without close analysis of § 102(b)."

Anyway, Google's whole argument about "thin" protection does not, in my view, counterbalance Axiom 1 of Oracle's appellate argument:

"The Copyright Act's threshold for copyright protection is very low. Any 'creative spark' counts, 'no matter how crude [or] humble.' Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted)."

That is, again, the telephone directory case. In that case, there was no such creative spark with respect to the "raw data". In the Java case, there's far more than a spark.

What's the right degree of protection for software developers?

After two rather long sections I can keep this third one short. I'm not concerned that copyright protection for 7,000 lines of declaring API code and/or its structure, sequence and organization poses a threat to honest software developers. The statistical probability of an innocent person infringing, by happenstance, a sufficient portion of these APIs to be considered a copyright infringer (assuming that, dependent on the jurisdiction, an independent creation defense is unavailable or unavailing) is almost zero. If it happened once (to one programmer in the world) every ten million years, that would be unusually frequent.

By contrast, think of all the little guys who got sued by Lodsys or Macrosolve over patents that these companies claim to read on pretty fundamental features like online updates or Internet forms.

Many app developers access the Java APIs, but they don't have anything to fear from Oracle v. Google, which is not about Oracle trying to prevent Google from writing Java apps -- but about Google's creation of a cannibalizing platform. But app developers also need some protection for their own works, and copyright is cheaper, faster and narrower than patents.

I certainly don't have a problem with intellectual property protection that can't be infringed inadvertently. Everyone can sit in front of their computer and write code without worrying about it. If Oracle prevailed 100% on its appeal, nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- would change for honest people. But if IP can be used against independent authors who don't copy or plagiarize, then the question of desirability requires further analysis. This is a copyright-focused blog post. It's not the time and place for such further analysis.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn: