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

461–470 of 643 posts

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

#461

Post by jadedhacker »

fuzzieozzie wrote: post #380
grellas wrote: post #355

Appellate courts do not lightly overturn jury verdicts using highly fact-specific reviews of evidence. There is a reason they call a jury a "trier of fact". There is a reason for this: if it were the rule that an appellate court could easily step in and second-guess how a jury weighs evidence, there would be little room for finality with jury verdicts because lawyers are very skilled (and become very tiresome) endles…

[cynical comment] Do you think the court is trying to guarantee jobs for lawyers?

It's worse than that, they're trying to guarantee profits for companies. Even though this is two titans fighting it out, the only people who benefit from an ultra strict copyright regime will be the people that can afford to fight it out in court. Everyone except people that hold shares in large companies will lose out.

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

#462

Post by hcknwscommenter »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #218
treis wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fundamental difference between: Blackbox testing -> API Specification -> Implementation and Copy API Specification -> Implementaton In the first case, you will come up with something similar but ultimately original. In the second case you are blatantly copying someone else's work.

...I don't really see what the difference is. In both cases Google would end up with exactly the same API specification. There's no room for them to come up with an "original" API, because if the API they end up with is not an _exact copy_ of Oracle's, then software written for Oracle's Java implementation would not be compatible with Google's Java implementation (and vice-versa).

So? The proper response would have been for Google to either pay the license or develop their own write once use anywhere software. Instead, the took the shortcut of copying someone's hard work.

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

#463

Post by wtallis »

DannyBee wrote: post #386
grellas wrote: post #355

Appellate courts do not lightly overturn jury verdicts using highly fact-specific reviews of evidence. There is a reason they call a jury a "trier of fact". There is a reason for this: if it were the rule that an appellate court could easily step in and second-guess how a jury weighs evidence, there would be little room for finality with jury verdicts because lawyers are very skilled (and become very tiresome) endles…

"In this case, the Federal Circuit Court did what amounted a wholesale second-guessing of what the jury concluded about the facts here." It's worse than that. They are supposed to be applying ninth circuit law, and they roundly haven't throughout the entire appeals. They've made a complete mess of it. First in copyrightability, and now fair use. There are even ninth circuit judges who have spoken out about this.

Can the Ninth Circuit itself petition the Supreme Court to intervene and stop the Federal Circuit from making a hash of Ninth Circuit law?

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

#464

Post by loup-vaillant »

ABCLAW wrote: post #430
loup-vaillant wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have just read from page 17 to 33. I expected a load of bullcrap, but ended up with only one nugget, page 31: > We further find that the district court erred in focusing its merger analysis on the options available to Google at the time of copying. It is well-established that copyrightability and the scope of protectable activity are to be evaluated at the time of creation, not at the time of infringement. The erro…

Google specifically decided not to use 'interoperability' as a functional objective constraining their code design because there was a wall of evidence against that interpretation. There's a comprehensive write-up elsewhere in this thread about it.

I have read it, and I disagree.

I am not arguing that Google has an interoperability exemption. I am arguing that the API is not (or should not be) copyrightable in the first place, because any attempt at interoperability would instantly void it.

I would also argue that interoperability with the training of masses of developers is a thing. Saying it is not only strengthens the relevant network effects, which is bad for competition. I doubt that last one would hold up in court, but still. See how C++ became popular. Not quite compatible with C, but close enough to spur adoption.

And overall, it is very weird that Google's intent matters here. They should be judged on what they did, and maybe whether they did it on purpose. Why they did it should be no more than extenuating or aggravating circumstances.

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

#465

Post by hcknwscommenter »

michaelmrose wrote: post #360
treis wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1% will be things like String.methodNoOneUses or ObscureClass. Even if they aren't identical they will be close enough for 99.999% of the programs people write.

So bugs nobody files then? Why do you think this is a useful distinction. Either APIs aren't copyrightable or we should pass a law that says they aren't immediately.

Bugs are a red-herring to the discussion. Bugs doesn't get you out of copying. The question is: did you copy or not? Google argued "we certainly did copy but APIs can't be copyrighted." Which was not the law at the time they did the copying and is not the law now .

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

#466

Post by na85 »

fuzzieozzie wrote: post #380
grellas wrote: post #355

Appellate courts do not lightly overturn jury verdicts using highly fact-specific reviews of evidence. There is a reason they call a jury a "trier of fact". There is a reason for this: if it were the rule that an appellate court could easily step in and second-guess how a jury weighs evidence, there would be little room for finality with jury verdicts because lawyers are very skilled (and become very tiresome) endles…

[cynical comment] Do you think the court is trying to guarantee jobs for lawyers?

That lawyers exist is a good thing. It means we have a human, nuanced perspective on the finer points and interpretation of the law, which in Western civilization reigns supreme over all other things.

Lawyers will never become obsolete until we no longer live in a society that obeys the rule of law.

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

#467

Post by sroussey »

I wonder if the meaning of this ruling will leak to other areas. For example, is “boilerplate” in contracts and other legal documents copyrightable? Who owns them? The lawyers, the law firms, the clients? Will attorneys pay other attorneys to use the same phrases and paragraphs?

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

#468

Post by dragonwriter »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #460
michaelmrose wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So bugs nobody files then? Why do you think this is a useful distinction. Either APIs aren't copyrightable or we should pass a law that says they aren't immediately.

Because? You want the world to work that way? Well, it doesn't. APIs are copyrightable.

APIs are copyrightable under a CAFC decision notionally applying 9th Circuit law in this case which the Supreme Court declined to review because, pending the resolution of other issues, they viewed it as not ripe for review. Since this is not within the CAFCs special subject-matter domain (patents or any of the other areas which bring a case within it's jurisdiction; this case is at CAFC because to once had patent claims even though they are no longer live), this ruling doesn't seem to be binding precedent on any lower court. So, it's “law” in only a very weak and tenuous sense.

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

#469

Post by hcknwscommenter »

tankenmate wrote: post #341
hcknwscommenter wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An infinite number of ways. Call it max(b,a) [i.e., reverse the order of b and a inputs]. But Google didn't do any of that. They copied.

The previous remark's point was that Java copied many C functions, inventions largely of AT&T and BSD.

I see the point, but that's "whataboutism." I also have no idea who owns the copyright (if anyone does) to stdlib APIs, and whether Oracle obtained license. Do you?

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

#470

Post by monocasa »

treis wrote: post #385
foota wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose they do this black box testing?

Write code, run it through the compiler and create specifications based on what you observe.

And once again, you'd end up in exactly this legal situation since the names are visible via reflection, but somehow aren't functional as viewed by the court.

That's one of the most important issues with this ruling; it effectively bans even black box reimplementations.

Post reply on HN