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

391–400 of 643 posts

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

#391

Post by ABCLAW »

jandrese wrote: post #271
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…

If API are copyrightable how do clean room implementations work? It seems IBM could sue the clone makers for the BIOS API if that's the case.

You actually do a clean room implementation rather than copying chunks of your competitor's work and then pretending it's allowed under fair use?

Seems pretty straightforward.

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

#392

Post by s73v3r_ »

monocasa wrote: post #228
s73v3r_ wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If this is true, it certainly isnt happening again. Google dominates smartphones and could very easily decide to phase out java for go/rust, torpedoing whatever rent-seeking strategy Oracle had originally devised." Because wanting to be paid for one's work is "rent-seeking" now? And no, Google really couldn't. There's a huge library of Android applications that are using Java technologies to make them. Google can't…

Just because you worked on something doesn't mean you get a perpetual government enforced monopoly on it.

And just because you want something doesn't mean you deserve it for free.

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

#393

Post by geodel »

qaq wrote: post #9

I bet Larry and Sergey are thinking we should have bought SUN.

Why? At worst Google will pay a couple billion for losing API suit. Oracle's patent suit already went down the tube. And by the time Oracle wins Java will be even less relevant for both Google and Oracle. Considering Oracle's Java business is sinking. They already threw away JavaEE to Eclipse and Cloud infra is heading Go way.

So instead of being hobbled by Sun JDK design decisions they worked on Dalvik and Java like paraphernalia. And big success of Android is partially due to that.

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

#394

Post by ABCLAW »

phkahler wrote: post #388
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…

>> Dealt with previously - APIs are copyrightable. Bzzt. You really need to make a citation for that statement. Without it there is no point in considering your other 3. The case law around that issue is exactly Oracle vs Google.

Bzzt. They're cited. By me. In this thread.

The 2018 decision is not the same as the 2014 decision or the 2012 decision.

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

#395

Post by protomyth »

treis wrote: post #384
protomyth wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are not getting the point of the whole "copyright the API" thing this discussion is talking about. If I can copyright the API then it doesn't matter if you clean room or not since the API is copyright and I can sue the heck out of you no matter how you did your work. That is my point that you are missing. IBM didn't believe they could copyright the API so they took some additional measures. If they thought th…

Actually, you're not getting it. Copyright means I can't copy your work. If I arrive independently at the same thing, then I didn't copy your work and therefore didn't violate your copyright. If I take your picture of a building and copy that's a copyright violation. If I take a picture of a building from the exact same angle you did, that's not a copyright violation.

> If I arrive independently at the same thing, then I didn't copy your work and therefore didn't violate your copyright.

That's not how it works for copyright. Beyond that, how do you independently arrive at an API that you are trying to have an exact copy of? Photography is not programming. I cannot run a bunch of words through a program until it prints out some book I want and then say I arrived at it independently. You honestly need to read the copyright laws as you are missing some information.

[edit: the original premise of all this thread is IBM didn't try to copyright the BIOS API]

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

#396

Post by phkahler »

ABCLAW wrote: post #319
maire wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RE> Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Dealt with previously In my entire career you could not copyright an API. There is good reason for this. If you wanted to do business with certain entities, the implementation had to be multisource. The new implementation had to come from a cleanroom, but in this case it came from open source (which seems equivalent). Therefore you have one judge making one decision that is an anom…

There's a lot of similar responses regarding the API copyright issue. APIs have been 'subject to copyright' for 4 years, since the 2014 decision in this case. Lets see some key details: This is the 2012 ruling: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf Alsup indicates that SSO isn't dead law, but finds that APIs aren't copyrightable because they are 'the only one way to write" things to get the key functionality…

Why have you chosen to mingle the verbatim copying of function implementations (range check) with the API definition copying? You say google "admitted it" which is a loaded term and you use that to say "This isn't a cleanroom implementation". Google conceded the direct copying of one function implementation and thought it not relevant - IIRC the jury awarded Oracle $1 for that. The rest of the function implementation ARE clean room implementation, and the API definitions are claimed by most of the industry to not be copyrightable.

If this holds up, every programming language that was not originally produced under a suitable open source license will need to be dropped because all software written in those languages will be infringing an API copyright.

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

#397

Post by eco »

ABCLAW wrote: post #391
jandrese wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If API are copyrightable how do clean room implementations work? It seems IBM could sue the clone makers for the BIOS API if that's the case.

You actually do a clean room implementation rather than copying chunks of your competitor's work and then pretending it's allowed under fair use? Seems pretty straightforward.

Cool. So if I just make a Mickey Mouse cartoon from scratch I should be good.

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

#398

Post by deong »

phkahler wrote: post #388
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…

>> Dealt with previously - APIs are copyrightable. Bzzt. You really need to make a citation for that statement. Without it there is no point in considering your other 3. The case law around that issue is exactly Oracle vs Google.

But Oracle vs. Google is the citation. Google previously won based on Fair Use. By definition, that court considered APIs to be copyrightable. If they weren't, the case would have been adjudicated on those grounds instead of the provisions of copyright law that govern fair use.

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

#399

Post by carussell »

shmerl wrote: post #379
carussell wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting way to characterize it. When the Supreme Court was considering Google's petition to hear the case, the court asked the White House to voice an opinion—where by "White House administration", you mean the Solicitor General. That's not "weird"; that's a normal part of the job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_Unite...

The weird part was in their view on copyrightability of APIs.

That's not weird, either. What would have been weird is a finding that they're not copyrightable, given that it would have been completely at odds with the statutes and case law we have concerning copyright.

The point is, nuance matters. If you're physically attacked and defend yourself in a way where you end up killing the guy, you claim that your actions were justified. You don't go to court claiming that killing people is just not a problem.

Here's how this case should go:

0. Oracle sues Google for copyright infringement.

1. Courts find that the design of APIs is an expression resulting from substantial creative decisions far above the low bar we already have for precedent, and therefore they're copyrightable.

2. Google defends themselves on the claim that, creativity notwithstanding, merely implementing a public API should not subject an implementor to the consequences of copyright infringement, and that there are no damages owed here.

And by every indication, we're right on track.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949839

And it looks like you're moving the goalposts and shitting out two-second replies, anyway, so I'm done commenting further here.

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

#400

Post by todd3834 »

pjmlp wrote: post #79
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.

Like school bullying, they assumed that they could get away with it, because Sun was out of money to sue them. Here is the latest Gosling interview on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...

Thanks for sharing this video! This has definitely widened my perspective.
Post reply on HN