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

Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 409 posts

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#71

Post by legohead »

untog wrote: post #36
nabaraz wrote: post #15

My favourite part of the trial was when the judge told Oracle that a high schooler could write rangeCheck[1]. [1] https://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/05/16/1612228/judge...

My favourite part: Movement to a few minutes of terse explanations, including what the acronym GNU stands for: GNU is Not Unix. “The G part stands for GNU?” Alsup asked in disbelief. “Yes,” said Schwartz on the stand. “That doesn’t make any sense,” http://motherboard.vice.com/read/in-google-v-oracle-the-nerd...

Lesson 1: recursion

Lesson 2: See Lesson 1

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#72

Post by rayiner »

DannyBee wrote: post #66
rayiner wrote: post #12

These are the statutory fair use factors the jury was required to consider (17 U.S.C. 107): (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential…

Errr, you didn't do factor one properly :) "Under the first of the four § 107 factors, "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature ... ," the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transfo…

Is Dalvik's use of the Java API transformative? My understanding of Cambell is that it's the Google Image Search scenario: where the thumbnail of the copyrighted work is fair use because it serves a totally different function than the original work.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#74

Post by dragonwriter »

theptip wrote: post #27
rayiner wrote: post #12

These are the statutory fair use factors the jury was required to consider (17 U.S.C. 107): (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential…

Agreed, it sounds like by the letter of the law Google's use was not "fair use", if you grant the assumption that APIs are copyrightable in the first place. What recourse does Oracle have now? Didn't the Supreme Court decline to take this issue up last time round? Does that mean this case is closed?

They've got post-verdict motions at the trial court, if that fails they can speak to the Circuit Court (I think this will go to the Ninth Circuit now rather than the Federal Circuit, but that may be incorrect.) If they fail their, they can petition to have the Supreme Court take up the case (their refusal to take up a different question in an interlocutory -- prior to final judgement -- appeal previously shouldn't be considered a strong signal of whether they would take the same or a different question on appeal of a final judgement.)

At the Circuit and Supreme Court level, expect Google to cross-appeal against the copyrightability issue again (the Ninth Circuit might well rule differently than the CAFC did applying -- in theory -- Ninth Circuit precedent, and in any case I think they'll need to do so at the Circuit level to keep the issue alive for the Supreme Court, which may week take the issue up on a final speak though it declined to do so on an interlocutory one.)

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#76

Post by zerocrates »

theptip wrote: post #27
rayiner wrote: post #12

These are the statutory fair use factors the jury was required to consider (17 U.S.C. 107): (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential…

Agreed, it sounds like by the letter of the law Google's use was not "fair use", if you grant the assumption that APIs are copyrightable in the first place. What recourse does Oracle have now? Didn't the Supreme Court decline to take this issue up last time round? Does that mean this case is closed?

> it sounds like by the letter of the law Google's use was not "fair use"

One of the many things that makes fair use tricky is that the statutory factors aren't exclusive: 17 USC 107 just says that "the factors to be considered shall include" the 4 factors.

The letter of the law for fair use is often not all that helpful.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#78

Post by Dylan16807 »

rayiner wrote: post #64
dctoedt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As to factor number 1, the purpose and character of the infringing use: In the 2 Live Crew / Pretty Woman case, the Supreme Court held that just because an infringing use is commercial, that doesn't automatically mean it's unfair (although it is indeed an important factor). [0] As to factor number 2, the nature of the copyrighted work: For the last 20 years or so, courts have been backing away from the expansive appr…

Good point about factor #4. But (in light of dragonwriter's comment below): wasn't Sun making a play at getting JVM into peoples' phones before Android stole their thunder? Or am I misremembering the timing?

Phones have had Java since 2001.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#79

Post by farcical_tinpot »

rayiner wrote: post #64
dctoedt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As to factor number 1, the purpose and character of the infringing use: In the 2 Live Crew / Pretty Woman case, the Supreme Court held that just because an infringing use is commercial, that doesn't automatically mean it's unfair (although it is indeed an important factor). [0] As to factor number 2, the nature of the copyrighted work: For the last 20 years or so, courts have been backing away from the expansive appr…

Good point about factor #4. But (in light of dragonwriter's comment below): wasn't Sun making a play at getting JVM into peoples' phones before Android stole their thunder? Or am I misremembering the timing?

Oracle tried to argue that, with seemingly limited success. Bringing up SavaJe didn't help them. It clearly wasn't equivalent to Android in any way.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#80

Post by doughj3 »

rayiner wrote: post #12

These are the statutory fair use factors the jury was required to consider (17 U.S.C. 107): (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential…

If anyone is curious to see a summary of Oracle's claims to Google's copying not being fair use, the slides for their closing arguments are available at Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/how-oracle-made-i...

Disclaimer: I work for Oracle, though not on Java.

Post reply on HN