Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Software Copyright and Innovation After Oracle v Google

epiclaw.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: Software Copyright and Innovation After Oracle v Google

#11

Post by thescriptkiddie »

Zikes wrote: post #6
derekp7 wrote: post #4

When presenting this to someone, is it helpful to use a human language analogy? For example: In english, when you refer to a "car", you are talking about a machine that moves people on roads. Whereas when you refer to a "boat", you are talking about something that floats on water. What Oracle wants Google to do, is to make up a new name for "car" and "boat", and try to get all developers to adopt these new definition…

That doesn't sound very clear to me. I think a better analogy would be: Google and Oracle both made cars. Google put the gear shift in the same location as Oracle.

I think an even better analogy would be:

Google and Oracle and a bunch of other companies all make cars. All of the cars have a gearshift with the same pattern, because long ago the company who built the first car encouraged other carmakers to copy their design. But then Oracle buys the company who built the first car and tries to sue Google (and only Google) for copying their shift pattern.

Re: Software Copyright and Innovation After Oracle v Google

#12

Post by alok-g »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #7

I explained it to my parents by saying "You can copyright your street address, and anyone who writes it on an envelope to be mailed to you has just committed a copyright violation." They said that sounded pretty stupid, I agreed, but its the current law as far as I can tell.

Could you explain more please.

Making up a street address would normally not involve creative expression, but even if it does, its intended purpose is to allow others to use the address for various purposes, which would then be fair use.

In this analogy, Google did not mail something to this address, rather created another house with the same address so that anyone sending mail to Oracle is able to redirect it to Google without changing the address (by posting into a different mailbox).

Design of an API certainly involves creative expression, so much that many developers are not able to get it right. So I do not think the analogy is valid anyways.

Re: Software Copyright and Innovation After Oracle v Google

#13

Post by alok-g »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #11
Zikes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't sound very clear to me. I think a better analogy would be: Google and Oracle both made cars. Google put the gear shift in the same location as Oracle.

I think an even better analogy would be: Google and Oracle and a bunch of other companies all make cars. All of the cars have a gearshift with the same pattern, because long ago the company who built the first car encouraged other carmakers to copy their design. But then Oracle buys the company who built the first car and tries to sue Google (and only Google) for copying their shift pattern.

Did Sun encourage others to copy the design though (genuinely asking)? They allowed others to use their designs. I have been under the impression that while Java was open-sourced, there was a a specific clause in the license to prevent what Google did.

Re: Software Copyright and Innovation After Oracle v Google

#14

Post by Teckla »

alok-g wrote: post #13
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think an even better analogy would be: Google and Oracle and a bunch of other companies all make cars. All of the cars have a gearshift with the same pattern, because long ago the company who built the first car encouraged other carmakers to copy their design. But then Oracle buys the company who built the first car and tries to sue Google (and only Google) for copying their shift pattern.

Did Sun encourage others to copy the design though (genuinely asking)? They allowed others to use their designs. I have been under the impression that while Java was open-sourced, there was a a specific clause in the license to prevent what Google did.

Did Sun encourage others to copy the design though (genuinely asking)?

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that Sun intended for their JVM to be the reference version, and they envisioned a lot of companies creating their own competing (but compatible) JVMs.

I don't recall any hints or suggestions "copying" the Java API would be a problem. I believe Sun planned on making money by charging for Java implementations to be tested against the TCK in order to earn the Java label.

Re: Software Copyright and Innovation After Oracle v Google

#15

Post by alok-g »

Teckla wrote: post #14
alok-g wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Sun encourage others to copy the design though (genuinely asking)? They allowed others to use their designs. I have been under the impression that while Java was open-sourced, there was a a specific clause in the license to prevent what Google did.

Did Sun encourage others to copy the design though (genuinely asking)? My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that Sun intended for their JVM to be the reference version, and they envisioned a lot of companies creating their own competing (but compatible) JVMs. I don't recall any hints or suggestions "copying" the Java API would be a problem. I believe Sun planned on making money by charging for Java implementa…

I had read somewhere long time back that mobile devices were explicitly excluded from this in the license.

Re: Software Copyright and Innovation After Oracle v Google

#16

Post by [deleted] »

coldpie wrote: post #5

This court case is, with no exaggeration, the most important software industry case in decades, perhaps ever. As the article says, if you're familiar with Android, Google, Chrome, Firefox, Edge (nee Internet Explorer), OS X, Linux, and the Internet, it is no exaggeration to say that every single one of those technologies, products, and companies are in violation of copyright according to this decision. Oracle is lite…

[deleted]

Re: Software Copyright and Innovation After Oracle v Google

#17

Post by elevenfist »

The basic analogy is that an api is like the pointy end of a drill bit. Google and Oracle want to help people drill in screws or hex keys. Sun started selling flat screw bits, and google, in order for handymen (developers) to be able to use the same skills, also started selling flat bits (or flat head screws if you prefer).

The one distinction complicating this a little is more thought and creativity goes into designing an api then designing the interface between a drill bit and screw.

Re: Software Copyright and Innovation After Oracle v Google

#20

Post by throwawaykf05 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #10
tzs wrote: post #3

> Oracle appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC" or the "Federal Circuit"). Because Oracle's case included patent claims, the CAFC had jurisdiction over the appeal, and so Oracle was able to avoid review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit I think this needs to be changed. I can't think of any good reason why in a case like this, where it has both patent and…

> I think this needs to be changed. I can't think of any good reason why in a case like this, where it has both patent and copyright claims, that the appeals need to go to the same court. Economy of justice concerns are the biggest reason, though there are other reasons to keep the case together (e.g., because it is one case between the same parties and different issues will rely on intersecting sets of determination…

> Why not just send the whole thing to the Circuit Courts whether or not there are patent issues?

Apparently, because previously different Circuit Courts interpreted the Patent Act differently, leading to forum shopping as problematic as what happens in ED Texas today. Except back then there was no recourse -- at least today you can take your appeals to a more consistent court.

> I know the theory but has practice actually born out the supposed benefits of the CAFC as the single Court of Appeals for patent cases?

This study partially tackles that question from multiple angles and the conclusion is mostly favorable to the existence of a CAFC:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2231312

Post reply on HN