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

521–530 of 643 posts

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

#521

Post by phkahler »

ABCLAW wrote: post #442
phkahler wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ACT…

>> 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.

There are two things in play here and they are NOT the same. The one the whole world cares about is weather APIs are copyrightable. Weather Google is guilty of copying part of Oracles implementation of the code behind the API is not relevant to API copyrightability. If you can't see the distinction you don't understand software or the real core of the case and should stop trolling. If you do see the distinction, why do you keep insisting on conflating the two?

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

#522

Post by jgh »

curt15 wrote: post #510
jgh wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean all the cloud providers who are copying S3's API for object storage are violating some copyright?

After all, the sole purpose of such reimplementations would be to take business away from Amazon.

what about things like aftermarket car parts? 3rd party phone cases?

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

#523

Post by wtallis »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #469
tankenmate wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> (if anyone does)

There's no doubt that if it is established that APIs are subject to copyright, then someone owns copyright to the C standard library APIs. It's not old enough for copyright to have expired, and nobody has ever released the APIs to the public domain (because nobody ever seriously thought that such a thing would be necessary). Establishing API copyright as a real thing without broad fair use rights would throw into doubt the copyright ownership of a large portion of all software ever written.

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

#524

Post by kbutler »

na85 wrote: post #518
kbutler wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ideal world, lawyers would be advocates seeking to provide a nuanced, human perspective. In the current world, I think it is more common to be seeking loopholes, weaknesses, and exploits instead.

I can see how a person that only knows about law what they read in the headlines could come to that conclusion, but painting lawyers with a broad brush as you have is no more of a generalization than me saying that every Facebook employee is devoid of morals and ethics.

Which lawyers in what context do you see providing that nuanced human perspective?

Corporate law? Their job is keep us from getting sued.

Family law? If you're advocating that human perspective for the opposing party, are you failing your duty to your client?

Prosecutors? Not sure they have that discretion.

General legal services, probate, etc. Doesn't seem that applicable.

Intellectual Property? Human perspective? Unlikely, except maybe the "hard-working inventor" angle.

Defense attorneys? Sure. That could be a good angle - along with any possible opening to exploit.

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

#525

Post by wtallis »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #480
wtallis wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clean-room reverse engineering produces an implementation that is not a derivative of the original implementation. But if the API itself is copyrightable as a separate work from the implementation, then you have to consider whether the API of the reverse engineered implementation is a derivative of the API of the original implementation. The answer to this question is rather obviously yes , since the reverse engineer…

> Clean-room reverse engineering is only useful in a world where APIs aren't copyrightable. I disagree. However, I am not aware of any caselaw on this point. It is an interesting logical twist you have added, but I fail to see how it must be that way in view of the fact that copyright explicitly allows clean-room type reverse engineering.

> in view of the fact that copyright explicitly allows clean-room type reverse engineering.

The legal status of reverse engineering is not at all clear-cut. There are many nuances depending on the circumstances, and much of it is determined by case law rather than statute. There's no clear basis for you to make claims about how this new class of copyright (on APIs) will interact with reverse engineering. However, it is much simpler to state that if APIs are a work subject to copyright, then it must be possible to make derivative works of APIs that are also subject to copyright absent any explicit exception or fair use right.

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

#526

Post by cromwellian »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #473
michaelmrose wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They copied literally a handful of lines of code that an intern could have written in a few hours.

But they didn't just write their own APIs. They copied them. Thousands of them.

Copying an API is what software developers call "implementing an API"

When you create your own USB cable, or electric plug, you aren't copying the API specs, you're implementing them.

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

#527

Post by na85 »

kbutler wrote: post #524
na85 wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see how a person that only knows about law what they read in the headlines could come to that conclusion, but painting lawyers with a broad brush as you have is no more of a generalization than me saying that every Facebook employee is devoid of morals and ethics.

Which lawyers in what context do you see providing that nuanced human perspective? Corporate law? Their job is keep us from getting sued. Family law? If you're advocating that human perspective for the opposing party, are you failing your duty to your client? Prosecutors? Not sure they have that discretion. General legal services, probate, etc. Doesn't seem that applicable. Intellectual Property? Human perspective? U…

Every single point in this post is a broad-brush generalization perpetuated by media stereotypes.

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

#528

Post by Lazare »

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.

Google didn't do a clean room implementation, so it's difficult to speculate what this decision might indicate for some other case involving a clean room implementation.

(And yes, I know: The overwhelming majority of the work was a clean room implementation, but not all. In retrospect, this was an unfortunate mistake by Google.)

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

#529

Post by zbyte64 »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #328
oldandtired wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AS has been covered elsewhere, an API is a functional description and not copyrightable, irrespective of what a specific court says. This specific court has had its rulings slapped about so much by the next higher court, it is a wonder that they haven't just packed up and gone home. That is why telephone books and others things are not copyrightable. They are lists of facts. API's are lists of facts, a functional spe…

Telephone books are copyrightable. This is black letter law. As said by the Supreme Court in Feist, "Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement," In other words, if it does feature the same selection and arrangement, it i…

Where can I go copyright my phone number? I want to make those marketers pay a royalty for even storing my number.

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

#530

Post by michaelmrose »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #471
dragonwriter wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cl…

Well, I would love to hear about a circuit court case that says otherwise. Seriously, I have no idea, but I do not believe such exists.

Basically it's not the law yet and may never be the law.
Post reply on HN