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

81–90 of 409 posts

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

#81

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#82

Post by dragonwriter »

DannyBee wrote: post #70
dragonwriter wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I see it, only factor 1 clearly weights against Google at all; the other factor you think applied presumably is #4, but Android gaining market is irrelevant to that. The value of or market for Java shrinking compared to what it would otherwise be is what factor 4 is about, and while Oracle no doubt argued this point, it's certainly not indisputable.

The supreme court has repeatedly stated that being commercial or not commercial is not the entire point, and the more transformative the use, the less it matters whether it is commercial or not. (see the cite to campbell v. acuff rose, etc) In fact, the precise argument y'all seem to make is disassembled in that case, because it's what the original court of appeals decision was in that case : "The Court of Appeals re…

I'll agree that I was too hasty in agreeing that factor 1 weighs against Google in my rush to make the case that factor 4 isn't a slam dunk.

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

#84

Post by farcical_tinpot »

magicalist wrote: post #59
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 API's are copyrightable > And if you're in the camp that believes APIs should not be protected, this precedent--if it stands--means that you'll have to shoulder the expense of going to trial on the fair use issue before winning on the merits. worth remembering that since that decision was made by the Federal Circuit, it has no bearing on the rest of the court system when it comes to copyright. There is no place…

Fair point. I'm reminded why I don't get too familiar with US law in these cases.

Starting from "Are APIs copyrightable" all over again? Great......... More legal fees, court time and nonsense.

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

#85

Post by DannyBee »

rayiner wrote: post #72
DannyBee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, i'm not going to express a precise legal view here (i am sadly too involved, i'm just going to stick to answering more general questions and pointing out what caselaw says), just pointing out your analysis of commerciality as the goal of the first factor is precisely what SCOTUS said not to do :)

I will simply point out, as i did in another comment, that the court of appeals in that case did in fact, claim that because 2 live crew took the heart of the old work, and made it the heart of the new work, that it was not transformative, and SCOTUS said that was wrong.

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

#86

Post by typon »

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...

Wait till they hear about mutually recursive acronyms like GNU HURD.

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

#87

Post by forrestthewoods »

farcical_tinpot wrote: post #58
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…

It wasn't even really a case (like say, Samba) where copying was necessary to interoperate with a closed, proprietary system. Samba never copied anything. The interoperability argument was simple. Google wanted to use a language that was familiar to most and where developers could take existing code and port trivially. There are developer tools on the market that have done that for decades. Davlik isn't drop-in compa…

> You can copyright APIs, but you can't tell others how they should be used.

What does that mean? What privileges would such a copyright provide? What could I do with the copyright that I couldn't do without?

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

#88

Post by pfg »

magicalist wrote: post #59
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 API's are copyrightable > And if you're in the camp that believes APIs should not be protected, this precedent--if it stands--means that you'll have to shoulder the expense of going to trial on the fair use issue before winning on the merits. worth remembering that since that decision was made by the Federal Circuit, it has no bearing on the rest of the court system when it comes to copyright. There is no place…

> Any lawsuits that don't end up in the Federal Circuit (which pure copyright suits never do) [...]

It seems (based on this case) that you could make that happen by simply throwing in a patent claim, even if you'd get defeated on that point (which happened to Oracle). Not sure if that's a general rule one could exploit, or something that just happened in this case?

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

#89

Post by [deleted] »

pfg wrote: post #88
magicalist wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If API's are copyrightable > And if you're in the camp that believes APIs should not be protected, this precedent--if it stands--means that you'll have to shoulder the expense of going to trial on the fair use issue before winning on the merits. worth remembering that since that decision was made by the Federal Circuit, it has no bearing on the rest of the court system when it comes to copyright. There is no place…

> Any lawsuits that don't end up in the Federal Circuit (which pure copyright suits never do) [...] It seems (based on this case) that you could make that happen by simply throwing in a patent claim, even if you'd get defeated on that point (which happened to Oracle). Not sure if that's a general rule one could exploit, or something that just happened in this case?

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by pfg »

blacktulip wrote: post #67

Excuse me here but I have to ask. Is this final? Because I've read that Oracle won the case some time ago.

The district court originally ruled that APIs weren't copyrightable. The appeals court overturned that decision, ruling that APIs were copyrightable, but that it could be fair use. The case went back to the district court for that point, and the jury now decided that it was in fact fair use.
Post reply on HN