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

151–160 of 643 posts

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

#151

Post by alex_young »

treis wrote: post #146
baldfat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't get why it's a scary issue or even controversial why an API would be subject copyright. An API, in my mind, is similar to design drawings or blueprints. Independently figuring out how to implement those drawings doesn't change the fact that you copied the design.

If you apply this view to all APIs, the computer revolution would never have happened. The PC was a clone of IBMs API. They fought this battle and lost and now we can argue about it on little handheld clones all day long.

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

#152

Post by dec0dedab0de »

snarf21 wrote: post #18
todd3834 wrote: post #5

I’m not sure if I have the timeline correct but I thought Java was owned by Sun Microsystems at the time when they made these decisions. I’m sure they rightly assumed Sun Microsystems would never do this. It is sad to see what Oracle is doing with Sun Microsystem’s creation.

It is beyond sad. Oracle bought Sun exclusively to sue Google for its use of Java in Android. (I know someone involved in the lawsuits.) We really need to fix our patent system on the software side.

Oracle bought Sun exclusively to sue Google for its use of Java in Android.

I think MySQL had something to do with it too. Even if just to capture the mindshare of all the developers using it at the time.

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

#153

Post by onetimemanytime »

sqdbps wrote: post #43

This is ridiculous. Google won two jury trials and the CAFC has no business deciding copyright cases.

>>Google won two jury trials and the CAFC has no business deciding copyright cases.

I think that's their only business, by design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals...

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

#154

Post by s73v3r_ »

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…

Considering the pain that has been caused by Google deciding they needed to reinvent Java, and do so in a way that isn't really compatible with the new releases, I would say I'm ok with this.

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

#155

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…

Most third party commercial Java vendors, selling JDKs for embedded development also have their own VMs and AOT compilers, with variations better suited for their hardware.

Aicas, PTG, IBM, MicroEJ, ....

Big difference with Google?

They play by the rules.

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

#156

Post by oconnor663 »

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…

> real damage has been done to the health of the Java ecosystem by having billions of devices run fragmented Java-but-not-Java

Even 100% running with that, damaging an ecosystem isn't against the law. You could argue that Google damaged the Erlang ecosystem by not basing Android on Erlang. Ecosystems compete with each other all the time, and it's hard for one to grow without damaging another.

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

#157

Post by s73v3r_ »

simias wrote: post #112
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…

But, and this is the big but, they did it in such a way as not to be compatible with the Oracle one.

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

#158

Post by manigandham »

throw_away wrote: post #128
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…

And yet Oracle ships an S3 compatibility API: https://docs.us-phoenix-1.oraclecloud.com/Content/Object/Tas...

Does anyone actually use the Oracle Cloud? From my attempts, it's only full of misery and broken tech.

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

#159

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Agathos wrote: post #61
shmerl wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I sure hope so. That decision definitely needs to be appealed. I very much hope it's overturned. (The industry has pretty much assumed - and acted - that APIs were not copyrightable, and that's worked out all right. Suddenly shifting to APIs being copyrightable is going to cause some change the rules under existing activity, in ways that it's hard yet to define the full scope of.)

But even if it's not, the decision needs to be appealed. Right now the situation is that APIs are copyrightable, but only for sure within one of the US Federal Court districts. In the other districts, they may be copyrightable. Or they may not be. If they aren't, then we have different law applying in different districts until the Supreme Court decides to resolve the issue. A Supreme Court decision now, one way or the other, would at least give resolution. (If they decide that APIs are copyrightable, then we'd have different law in the US and Europe, but at least it would be the same law everywhere in the US.)

[Edit: Apparently this isn't in a district court, it's in the Federal Circuit, which handles patent cases.]

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

#160

Post by kemitche »

treis wrote: post #146
baldfat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't get why it's a scary issue or even controversial why an API would be subject copyright. An API, in my mind, is similar to design drawings or blueprints. Independently figuring out how to implement those drawings doesn't change the fact that you copied the design.

To me it's more like copyrighting the standard height of a door.
Post reply on HN