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

Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 643 posts

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#61

Post by Agathos »

shmerl wrote: post #55
Ajedi32 wrote: post #40

I think the case was basically lost as soon as the court ruled that APIs are copyrightable. I still disagree with that decision, but once you've already arrived at that point then I think it's pretty hard to argue that Google's use of those APIs was fair use.

Why can't they appeal that ruling? It's completely wrong. EU got it right, and copyright lobby didn't manage to spoil it there.

They did appeal, and the Supreme Court pretty much said they didn't want to look at this until a trial took place on the fair use question. Now that that's happened, I assume there will be another appeal to the Supreme Court.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#62

Post by ABCLAW »

kodablah wrote: post #44
redm wrote: post #28

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…

Call me naive, but is a company being happy with what you're doing to the tune of them even saying so (or representatives thereof) tantamount to an implicit contract? I know it's been argued in this case, but it strikes me as disingenuous at the least and fraudulent at the most to change your mind. Sure we don't mind Google bearing the brunt of this because they can, but how would we feel were a smaller company subje…

This isn't a bait and switch based on legalities. If Oracle made representations to Google that they didn't mind them using their software, Google would be able to claim that Oracle is estopped from pursuing a claim due to the prior authorization they received.

What's being stated here is that Google's infringement improved Oracle's market position - that fact doesn't bar Oracle from pursuing their remedy against infringement. If you steal my software for making phones chirp every time you get a tweet and widely distribute it to the point that it becomes the de-facto standard in the tweet notification market, it doesn't magically mean that I don't get to come after you for stealing my tweet tech.

Here's the decision itself. Estopple is mentioned 0 times. This isn't because Google's legal team is braindead. It's because the argument that the Google's use was authorized following them walking away mid-licensing negotiation is insane. Google's defense is based on fair use. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#63

Post by djsumdog »

redm wrote: post #28

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…

But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on).

This gets into really critical concerns around APIs. If commercial product A sucks and I'm in a shop where we made our own drop in replacement that implement's A's APIs .. then we open source that drop-in replacement and put it on Github so anyone can use it, are we no violating their copyright just by implementing their API?

This can set dangerous prescient when it comes to interoperability and reverse engineering.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#64

Post by JepZ »

OT: Thinking about API copyright I wonder how that is supposed to work in other programming languages e.g. Golang. Lets assume Google owns the copyright of the 'io.Writer' interface for the moment.

Is everybody who has implemented a struct with a Writer method which satisfies the 'io.Writer' interface and as oracle stated it 'who wants to use them for a competing platform or to embed them in an electronic device' now (hypothetical) at risk of being prosecuted because they infringe Googles copyright?

---

I am well aware that Google was the respondent in the Oracle vs. Google case.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#65

Post by IAmEveryone »

cromwellian wrote: post #37
bitwize wrote: post #19

Google shoulda thought twice before stealing Sun/Oracle's IP.

Yeah, “stealing” an API and open source, building a successful mobile UI platform (unlike personal/embedded java and Sun’s own failed attempts at fragmentation) and contributing it free back to open source where it has been used as a base OS for thousands of new products from TVs to drones.

Do you oppose copyright on all software, i. e. source code, as well?

Because I could somewhat understand that sort of IP anarchism, although I wouldn't agree. But I'm having a hard time thinking about a coherent reasoning to see source code as copyrightable, yet deny the same to APIs.

Copyright applies to any creative endeavours that reach a certain level of breath and/or depth. Having been involved in a few library projects, I have witnessed quite a few where I would say the API was far more important, and sometimes took more work, than the underlying implementation.

Look, for example, at all the work done in standard-setting bodies: RFCs, WHATWG, etc. They are all licensed freely, yes. But the attachment of licenses to those documents implies an acknowledgement by the authors (and the community) that their work falls under copyright.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#67

Post by pjmlp »

redm wrote: post #28

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…

To complement that, here is the most recent Gosling´s interview at Triangulation about how Google screw Sun and was aware of their monetary situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#68

Post by BoorishBears »

wstrange wrote: post #17
BoorishBears wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: I feel Google should be punished for what they did to Java. Maybe the mechanism being used is wrong, but Android bastardized Java and as an Android developer I feel real damage has been done to the health of the Java ecosystem by having billions of devices run fragmented Java-but-not-Java. Google has started to make it right with the switch to openJDK and Desugar, but in a lot of ways it’s too litt…

Android arguably saved Java by making it much more relevant than it otherwise would have been.

I’m don't agree with that, the big reason why what Google did was so vexing was the timing.

Java was just starting to get revitalized after a long period of stagnation. Java 7 was a big deal and for a long time Android devs were limited to a weird amalgamation of Java 6 and a few Java 7 features.

Then Java 8 came with lots of great Stream goodies (and a lot more) while Android devs are still forced do to make due with unofficial backports or cutting off most Android devices (API 24) is the first to support them natively.

Android development gets mindshare for Android, not Java. The speed of the transition from Java to Kotlin shows how antsy devs were to get away from Java.

There are interesting things happening with Java, and they’re all outside of Android

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#69

Post by pjmlp »

djsumdog wrote: post #63
redm wrote: post #28

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…

But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). This gets into really critical concerns around APIs. If commercial product A sucks and I'm in a shop where we made our own drop in replacement that implement's A's APIs .. then we open source that drop-in replacement and pu…

All telecommunication companies, Nokia, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent, .... have their network elements APIs copyrighted and pattented.

Try to sell a device that comunicates with a e.g. BTS station without buying their licenses, to see how it ends.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#70

Post by chvid »

I always wondered why Google didn't buy Sun when they had the chance?

This (Android's use of Java) has always been a risk for Google. Either in form of the lawsuit but in more general what Oracle (or someone else) would do with Java.

Anyways. I hope both companies are smart enough to settle this in a reasonable manner.

Post reply on HN