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

201–210 of 643 posts

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

#201

Post by djsumdog »

danjoc wrote: post #114
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…

>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. Conside…

Huh .. so why doesn't Google just release their Android Java runtime under the GPL? Seems like an easy win all the way around?

I thought the OpenJDK people needed certain concessions to release their VM under the GPL?

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

#202

Post by TuringNYC »

Perhaps this is a naive question - but amongst the hundreds of of things Google has invented or has patents on, isn't there something they can find that Oracle has trampled on, and then use it as a negotiation tactic for making this all go away? e.g., If an API can be copyrighted, can a container registry interface also be copyrighted?

I agree, this is all stupid, but i'm asking this from the perspective of just finding examples to allow all parties to back off.

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

#203

Post by merb »

guelo wrote: post #183
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #162

I'm conflicted on this. A. I don't like that APIs are copywrite-able. B. I wish Google complied with the GPL anyway. I hate this anti-GPL sentiment that has been going around the last 10 years or so. C. The android play store would probably go through a renaissance if all the apps had to be rewritten. D. I don't trust Google, but I really really really don't like Oracle.

B. Java is not licensed under the GPL. C. Not going to happen.

B. Java is not licensed under the GPL.

OpenJDK is.

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

#204

Post by moomin »

dmix wrote: post #200
ABCLAW wrote: post #175

It may be helpful for readers to look at the actual meat and potatoes of the decision itself. I recommend jumping in at Page 27 of the decision so that they can see how the fair use factors were evaluated in this case: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... Fair use has four factors, lets see how it shook out: 1) Purpose and Character: Google tried to argue that because android is free that i…

What exactly was 'copied' by Google? Was it actual code directly copied or just the general design / APIs that were mirrored by their Android Java playform?

The Java API definition.

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

#205

Post by jlgaddis »

blattimwind wrote: post #134
curt15 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 AP…

Afaik there are several certified GNU/Linux derivatives.

I'm not seeing any [0]. Care to name one?

[0]: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

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

#206

Post by paulryanrogers »

adventured wrote: post #41
stephen wrote: post #22

I wonder how the $$ Google might pay to Oracle compares to the $$ it is spending to move away from Java by building replacements (v8, Go, Dart, Flutter/Fuschia, etc.) that are all essentially "GC languages with a great runtime VM". E.g. I can understand Oracle/Sun needing some amount of money for stewarding Java, as the teams required to build/maintain/QA/release the JVM were AFAIU in the hundreds, so not cheap. But…

> And, either way, the rest of us are still being spoiled by so many free lunches: amazing tech (languages/libraries/frameworks/ecosystems) built by professional teams that we don't pay a dime for. Don't those things realistically exist precisely because of a virtuous, continual cycle in the greater tech community of paying that free lunch forward? Even the strictly free lunch use cases, where someone doesn't contrib…

In some cases that's probably true. But consider how few resources were devoted to Openssl before they ended up in the limelight.

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

#207

Post by curt15 »

Coding_Cat wrote: post #165
pjmlp wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The rules as Oracle (and this ruling) sees them. Google and others disagree with Oracle about what the rules are or should be.

Interestingly, Microsoft briefed in support of Google this round in contrast with the copyrightability round.

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

#208

Post by dmix »

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…

> what if instead it was a small startup who simply couldn't afford that cost?

Licensing costs can scale according to the customers business size and revenue. What is more concerning is that this may create precedent that API specs are copyrightable -- to the degree they are worth billions in damages.

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

#209

Post by ineedasername »

josaka wrote: post #54
kodablah wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not a contract, but there are other mechanism in the law to give effect to this intuition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel

Estoppel: This my be my new favorite word. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios for use (okay, I can imagine one) "You can try to renege on your promises, but I'll estop you, I'll estop you once & for all!"

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

#210

Post by monocasa »

dmix wrote: post #200
ABCLAW wrote: post #175

It may be helpful for readers to look at the actual meat and potatoes of the decision itself. I recommend jumping in at Page 27 of the decision so that they can see how the fair use factors were evaluated in this case: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... Fair use has four factors, lets see how it shook out: 1) Purpose and Character: Google tried to argue that because android is free that i…

What exactly was 'copied' by Google? Was it actual code directly copied or just the general design / APIs that were mirrored by their Android Java playform?

The court has made the point now that literally just the class and method names are subject to copyright.
Post reply on HN