A! Elbereth Gilthoniel!
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath,
Gilthoniel, A! Elbereth!
We still remember, we who dwell
In this far land beneath the trees
The starlight on the western seas

The technical definition of the Java language is "the set of all Java programs".
This is an infinite set.
Therefore, it cannot be fixed in a tangible medium.
Therefore, it it is ineligible for copyright protection.

Of course Java can't be copyrighted, but Go, Renderscript and the Android library interface can be copyrighted?

IANAL, but on the other hand, if no computer language or library API can enjoy copyright protection, then it appears to me that it doesn't have GPL or Creative Commons protection either (since being required to follow these licences follows from the copyright holder's discretion)...

Be careful what you wish for google...

I'm totally baffled by this and would like an explanation of how a language could possibly be copyrighted. Is Tolkein's Elvish language copyrighted, and if so, what does that mean? I can understand specific phrases from his books being copyrighted, but if I translated this post into Elvish, does Tolkein's estate suddenly own the copyright to this post? Or what?

Sorry, but the idea of owning the copyright to a language seems silly. I might understand patenting a use of a language or patenting a method of translation, but the language itself? Doesn't copyright need to apply to a specific expression? Like... I can copyright the image of a painting, but I can't copyright paint.

I believe they refer to the language itself, not the implementation. The current C Programming specification (C11) is available for download. I think you have to pay a fee to download it, earlier drafts should be free. It is then up to X, Y and Z companies to implement the C programming language and libraries according to the specification. It is then those implementations the ones that are copyrighted.

In other words, if tomorrow we decide to wake up and write a new Java compiler and Java runtime, we just need to follow the specification. We may however, as part of our license dictate that every time you run our Java virtual machine you must wiggle your left foot over the top of the monitor whilst drinking a hot cup of Java [don't try that at home]. We can do this because this is our implementation.

I was under the impression that alphabets, typography, and calligraphy weren't copyrightable in the home country of Oracle, Google, and Slashdot. Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); Eltra Corp. v. Ringer; Copyright Office Practices 503.02(a). See Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts [wikipedia.org]. Fonts can be subject to a design patent, but unlike a copyright, a design patent has to be applied for, and a design patent expires.

Yes

I sincerely think Google should quietly buy the copyright to C/C++ before this

Then let Oracle go ahead with this.

As soon as Oracle gets copyright protection on languages google does 2 things:

1 - (motion to) Block the sale/usage of anything Java since Java comes from C/C++
2 - (motion to) Block the use of anything written in C/C++: Oracle products, JVM, etc, etc

Losing Android at this point is merely an annoyance.

Congratulation Oracle, if that's what you want, that's what you get.

A - this instruction affects some registers

B - This instruction does not affect some registers

etc

Hint A = Add, B = Branch (which means jump) but only real gurus knew this, because the documentation did not bother to tell you.

IMHE it is every bit as functional as Lisp.

A programming language is not copyrightable because it's not copyable. There's no fixed form into which it can be put to say, "This is the language." You can write a description or specification document for the language, but then that exact document is subject to copyright, not the language itself.
Copyright applies only to an enumerated set of types of creative products that have copyable fixed forms.
It's possible to copy a song, or a novel, or a computer program, or various other copyrightable works. It's possible to distribute those copies.
These notions break down when talking about a programming language. It's at a higher level of abstraction.

The words are under copyright because Tolkien created them and defined their associated meaning. You would be perfectly fine with using the script (typefaces are not subject to copyright in the US, they are in the UK) but because all of the meanings for the words come from Tolkien having defined a combination of sounds/letters as "meaning" something a translation would be a derivative of Tolkien's creative work.

I don't buy that argument at all. If that were true, then people would also be able to copyright new English words they coined.

I'm not the first to look at this issue. Back in 1999, some Tolkien scholars wanted to publish a journal entitled Tyalià Tyelelliéva, which was to include original poetry written using Tolkien's languages, but they didn't want to run afoul of copyright law. So they solicited a legal opinion from Robert P. Wade, former General Counsel, National Endowment for the Arts. This opinion is available online. He researched the law and concluded that this use would not violate any Tolkien copyrights, for a few different reasons. I won't have time to go into all of them, but here's one: The copyright law specifically says it does not protect any procedure, process, or system.12 A language is a system.13 In fact, there have been cases saying that computer languages are not copyrightable.14 Computer programs are copyrightable, but not the languages used to write them. Would a court find that a language intended for use by humans -- or elves -- falls into the same category? I can't say for sure, but I think there's a good chance of it.

So not only does their own citation say that it is likely Elvish is not copyrightable, it also says that computer languages are not copyrightable – directly undermining Oracle's own specific case! Did the attorney who included this citation assume no one would check it? I expect this kind of practice from desperate college students, not high-priced corporate lawyers.

A programming language has a syntax and a semantics. The semantics is generally considered mathematics. The language itself is not math. There are no reduction rules telling you how to compute in the language as opposed to, say, the lambda calculus (note the name calculus).

Consider the type system for a compute language. Where do the types exists? In the language? Nope, they are in a mathematical system into which the language must be interpreted.

That said, Oracle can suck eggs, Java isn't copyrightable because languages shouldn't be copyrightable. Their implementation may be, but language is an abstract thing. Being an abstraction does not make something mathematics, i.e., love.

I'm pretty sure Sun never made any ludicrous claim that they held a copyright on the Java language rather than specific implementations of it. There's a long history of independent implementations (as opposed to Microsoft's derivative of Sun's code) based on the good public specifications from Sun that they never attacked. The fact that Oracle is completely reversing this stance is not only illogical, but extremely anti-competitive. We've been worried about Microsoft patents on DotNet stuff for a long time, but it seems we were looking at the wrong anti-competitive behemoth. Perhaps the deepest irony is that while Sun sued Microsoft because Microsoft's version wasn't compatible with theirs, Oracle is suing Google because Google's implementation is compatible with theirs at a source level.