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

111–120 of 643 posts

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

#111

Post by macspoofing »

danjoc wrote: post #93

Good. Initially, I thought the API decision was a bad one, but now I think the courts got it right. If you've ever wrestled long with getting a program to compile, you realize it's non-trivial to wrap your brain around complex types. The API is a language and the compiler is a runtime producing output. I can design my API in something like Java and return null from all the methods while I do it. The compiler will sti…

No. This decision upends decades of computing and programming culture for no discernible benefit to anyone (even Oracle).

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

#112

Post by simias »

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…

Google knew what they were doing and IMO they were right. I still don't think Google or anybody should have to ask for Oracle's permission for reimplementing a JVM (as long as it's done cleanly). You seem to put the blame on Google for not wanting to pay $100M at the time but what if instead it was a small startup who simply couldn't afford that cost?

I'm not worried about Google in the least, I am however concerned about the precedent this sets.

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

#113

Post by curt15 »

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…

GNU/Linux is a partial (but incomplete, since no Linux distro is unix(tm) certified) a reimplementation of proprietary Unix, and with billion-dollar companies like Red Hat and IBM it's certainly a commercial endeavor at proprietary Unix's expense. It would seem to be an attractive target if a plaintiff like SCO could somehow move the case to the federal circuit (as none of the standard appeals courts have declared APIs copyrightable).

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

#114

Post by danjoc »

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…

>are we no violating their copyright just by implementing their API?

OpenJDK is GPL. If you comply with GPL, no. This is the problem, Google copied and did not comply with the GPL. Their other option was to pay Oracle/Sun a licensing fee for a commercial license. This is exactly the business model many GPL users follow. Ruling otherwise makes this business model invalid, but it also creates a double standard.

Consider a programming language where you program in types, like Idris. The case is more obvious here. The API is a program. The same applies to Java too, but that seems less obvious. The API is the program that produces compiler output.

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

#115

Post by geofft »

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…

> I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license).

I'm not sure I follow - Google believed they didn't need a license, just like everyone who used Linux despite SCO offering to license Linux to them.

If Google needed a license, and Sun had not offered one, it would not make a difference; Google would still be liable for infringement. There's no abandonware or compulsory license provision in the laws for this. The question is whether Google needed a license, not whether Sun was willing to offer one and for what price.

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

#116

Post by Waterluvian »

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…

Is this akin to React vs. Preact? Same API, entirely different codebase. Allows me to drop in a replacement if Facebook does a stupid.

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

#117

Post by macspoofing »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #65
cromwellian wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

That has nothing to do with anything. Copyright is a human construct. Somethings are decided to be copyrightable and somethings are not. Not every creative endeavor should be copyrighted, other should, and other should with major limitations. APIs were never copyrightable. Ever. The computing and programming industry developed with this assumption - in fact, it may not have ever developed if that wasn't the case. Why does this need to change now? And not even through a new law but rather court re-interpretation.

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

#118

Post by anonymouse12 »

cromwellian wrote: post #7
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…

So you want Swing apps on Android?

Quit shilling for your employer. No one takes this argument about a piece of technology (swing) that has not been relevant for over a decade and a half seriously. Look up the history of innovations that Java and in particular the hotspot JVM brought to the mainstream. Enough with this false narrative that java and the jvm sucked and was in decline and Google swooped in and saved it. Some of the creators of your beloved V8 and Go Lang were the very same folks who helped create the hotspot JVM. Google basically pulled a fast one by not buying a license and they knew the consequences even at the time this occurred.

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

#119

Post by lmm »

BoorishBears wrote: post #6
bitcharmer wrote: post #3

It's a shame that there was no one like judge Alsup in the appeals court. Now it's about legal phrases and licensing terms instead of common sense all over again.

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…

Java was only popular in the first place because people assumed it was a free-enough language that anyone could implement. Everyone assumed the TCK license was a technicality right up until Apache Harmony was (entirely unreasonably) denied one; most of the JCP members expressed shock and dismay at that.

That was the decision that lead to Android being "Java-but-not-Java". If they'd been granted a TCK license like they should've, they'd've implemented proper Java (confirmed by the TCK) and we'd be in exactly the same situation as if Google had used OpenJDK all along.

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

#120

Post by wolfgke »

baldfat wrote: post #102
djsumdog wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> reverse engineering That is certainly an issue if you reverse engineer anything. Google went out of their way to NOT reverse engineer it. The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue.

> The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue.

In Roman Law there is the principle "In dubio pro reo" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo), which means that if there are doubts whether the culprit is guilty or not, he/she may not be convicted.

Post reply on HN