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

441–450 of 643 posts

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

#441

Post by [deleted] »

shmerl wrote: post #432
carussell wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> What would have been weird is a finding that they're not copyrightable Nothing weird with that. APIs are meta tools, not actual tools. That's what "I" in the name is for. They are interfaces for a reason. It makes perfect sense for interfaces to be non copyrightable. EU courts got it right: Computer code itself can be copyrighted, but functional characteristics—such as data formats and function names— cannot be. "T…

[deleted]

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

#442

Post by ABCLAW »

phkahler wrote: post #396
ABCLAW wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn't choose to mingle those things. That's just plain what the facts are. I get that you don't like them, but that's tough beans.

The case goes into discussing this directly, indicating that Google's cleanroom efforts give it evidence that it proceeded in good faith, but good faith alone does not intrinsically absolve you of admitted copying (which is an infringement) that's found elsewhere.

Now if you did an ACTUAL cleanroom and didn't take chunks that you thought were trivial, the argument to demonstrate infringement in the first place would need to be localized on the SSO level, where single-option design choices would again be exempted through the doctrine of merger, and we'd have a much different set of considerations.

As per the jury award to Oracle, you'll be happy to know they're going back to first instance to have another trial to determine the quantum. Maybe Oracle will get $1 again despite winning due precisely to the mitigating factors you've raised. Who knows. This case wasn't about that. It was about fair use.

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

#443

Post by icebraining »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #390
simias wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how that's relevant, if anything since the crux of the issue seems to be the "stealing" of the API the fact that there are incompatibilities should be in Google's favour? It's a bit odd to claim that somebody stole your API while at the same time complaining that they did not steal it well enough.

"I'm not sure how that's relevant" The original license for Java said you can create your own implementation just fine, so long as it was compatible with the others (or at least the benchmark one). By not doing that, Google violated the license. "It's a bit odd to claim that somebody stole your API while at the same time complaining that they did not steal it well enough." Not if what you want to avoid is people Embr…

That's not all it said. The license had field-of-use restrictions, meaning you couldn't use your implementation for every purpose. The Apache Foundation published an open letter to Sun on that regard.

And specifically, use of a J2SE implementation in mobile devices may have been forbidden.

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

#444

Post by wtallis »

deong wrote: post #398
phkahler wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

The district court found APIs to not be copyrightable. The Federal Circuit disagreed, and ordered the district court to hold a trial under the assumption that APIs are copyrightable—that's when Google's fair use defense became necessary.

That Federal Circuit decision has not been reviewed by the Supreme Court, does not establish binding precedent outside the context of this case, and is widely seen by outsiders as being in error for not matching what the Ninth Circuit would have ruled.

It is incorrect to make any categorical statement that APIs are copyrightable. That question is still pending. All that's been settled is that this one case is being conducted under the assumption that APIs are copyrightable, until such time as the Supreme Court decides to review this issue.

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

#445

Post by bad_user »

deong wrote: post #398
phkahler wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

That creates a circular argument.

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

#446

Post by icebraining »

vanderZwan wrote: post #169
adamrezich wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

V8 is ten years old?! How time flies...

I have the opposite response: only a decade old? Same with YouTube actually, I can't really remember what the Web was like without video streaming

There was streaming before. You installed Real Player so you couBuffering...

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

#447

Post by bad_user »

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…

Sun didn't just license the rights to the Java IP, but as a supposed standard established by the JCP, a farce of a standardization body that never was.

Google probably had to use their implementation and J2ME was and still is a piece of shit.

Yes it was about cost, but the cost would have been far greater then the licensing price ;-)

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

#448

Post by pjmlp »

Zigurd wrote: post #376
pjmlp wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that wasn't the only approach available. There are OEMs selling commercial JDKs for embedded use, with their own VM, JIT and AOT compiler variations, and library extensions. Contrary to Google, they always played by the rules.

Android does not have a Java VM, and it does not run Java bytecode. Dalvik bytecode is more compact, and more CPU efficient, and the more recent ART runtime is even more efficient and performant. But it isn't a JVM.

Just like all the vendors selling commercial JDKs for the embedded market.

They also offer customized versions fine tuned for their deployment scenarios, doing Java bytecode to either native (AOT) or their own proprietary bytecode format when generating the firmware image.

Or for example, IBM Java running on IBM i mainframe, where Java bytecodes used to be translated into the TIMI bytecodes, just like any other IBM i application.

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

#449

Post by meddlepal »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #437
meddlepal wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? It runs on the JVM and Kotlin/JVM links the Java standard library as part of its class path and compiler emits JVM bytecode, but that's not the issue here. I feel like people do not understand what this lawsuit is about. There's also a lot of technical people here reading the decision and making tech-minded assumptions about the business strategy. A far simpler solution than reconstructing the entire ecosystem wo…

>The problem has nothing to do with using the Java API. It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation then building a secondary non-compliant JVM to run it. The OracleJDK (which is different from the OpenJDK) is not licensed in a way that allows copying. Um, no. The case has solely to do with the copyright of the SSO of 37 Java API's that Google used. This has nothing to do with their VM.…

You read one part of a sentence and then ignored the other part.

"It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation"

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

#450

Post by kodablah »

carussell wrote: post #438
kodablah wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The outcome here doesn't really have any impact on the future of Android While most of your point is true, I disagree with this part. Using lawyers to tackle companies that succeed with only parts of your technology may send a chilling effect towards future uses. Also, knowing that you are not allowed to partake certain independent directions in the stack you choose for your devices is a legitimate reason to fear t…

So you cut my comment off right at the part where I've pre-emptively addressed your entire criticism, and then you write out a paragraph detailing this criticism anyway because your position is contained squarely within the very part of my comment that you chose to leave out?

> (except if Google wanted to factor the suit into their decisionmaking for their own reasons)

> I don't think these are their own reasons as much as they would be the reasons used by anyone who fears technologies stewarded by litigious outfits.

Post reply on HN