Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#91

Post by jcranmer »

pjmlp wrote: post #88
danShumway wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that Google deserves punishment because they didn't buy another company is not one I'm even remotely sympathetic to. The entire industry would be worse off today if our legal policy on APIs was, "they're copyrighted, but don't worry, you can just buy out companies you want to interop with." Imagine how much smaller and how much more uninteresting the tech world would be. Any company that wasn't the size…

Yes I am, if Google was honest regarding Java they should have acquired the language stewardship. I work mostly with commercial software, so IP and patents are business as usual. Maybe even this would finally provide a way for many freetards to actually pay for the tooling they use.

So, in your opinion, WINE is an illegal software product, and Microsoft should sue them into oblivion. And IBM should sue everybody else for copying the BIOS interface. And Amazon should sue Oracle for implementing the AWS APIs.

If you believe that Oracle deserves to win this case, those are requisite outcomes of the case, because Oracle's legal contention is that merely providing an independent implementation of the API is copyright infringement.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#92

Post by danShumway »

pjmlp wrote: post #88
danShumway wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that Google deserves punishment because they didn't buy another company is not one I'm even remotely sympathetic to. The entire industry would be worse off today if our legal policy on APIs was, "they're copyrighted, but don't worry, you can just buy out companies you want to interop with." Imagine how much smaller and how much more uninteresting the tech world would be. Any company that wasn't the size…

Yes I am, if Google was honest regarding Java they should have acquired the language stewardship. I work mostly with commercial software, so IP and patents are business as usual. Maybe even this would finally provide a way for many freetards to actually pay for the tooling they use.

This is also an argument that I'm not very sympathetic to -- the idea that we need to lock down an entire ecosystem and consolidate it into 3-4 giant 'stewards' to protect us from those giant stewards. Arguments about bullying aside, Google was honest regarding Java. They built a clean-room implementation. That was their only obligation. Sun saw it that way too.

It would have a major chilling effect on the industry if every company could decide who was allowed to interop with their products. The fact that a few extremely large, extremely powerful players could get around that chilling effect by literally owning everything makes that situation worse, not better.

Tiny players who get taken advantage of don't need the world you propose -- they need a way to safely, legally interoperate with the software around them. When Microsoft says that its Windows APIs are copyrighted, should the WINE team buy Microsoft so they have permission to get Windows software running on Linux? Should Oracle buy Amazon so it can compete in the cloud?[0]

> Oracle can't simultaneously argue that API-using code does not embody copyrighted material from an API, and yet API-using code embodies all copyrights in the API necessary to give Oracle the right to reimplement S3.

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/oracle-copied-am...

> feetards

Nothing to say here except please don't use slurs like this.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#93

Post by danShumway »

pgsbathhouse wrote: post #71

Google's arguments were already refuted in the earliest hearings. There's a reason this is going to the supreme court, the rulings didn't really match up with accepted evidence and testimony of experts in the court. Google will lose this. You don't explicitly copy code, take other people's engineers after exiting licensing talks with the company you took from, and have it not be about stealing someone else's intellec…

This is objectively, very definitively false.

> You don't explicitly copy code

Google didn't copy code. Even if you believe that APIs are copyrightable, Google's clean-room implementation hasn't been part of the case for years. It's just about the API now.

If you want to make an argument that APIs are copyrightable, fine, make that argument. Make the argument that Google is infringing on Oracles API. But if you're trying to accuse Google of copying code, you're wrong. You're conflating two ideas that are not related.

> It's black and white but people's blind hate for Oracle leads them down an argument or view point the courts have already denied and are now ignoring.

If this was actually as black and white as you say, the Supreme court wouldn't have agreed to hear it, they would have just allowed the lower court decision to stand. Unless you believe that Ruth Bader Ginsburg blindly hates Oracle for some reason?

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#94

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dragonwriter wrote: post #19
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #5

This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted”. Call me cynical but I feel like google is narrowly interested in open innovation when they are at risk for billions in fines, and definitely also supports openness in other ways, but still supports a lot of proprietary and closed source work. There are lots of business reasons to be closed source, but do…

> This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted” That's not incompatible with openness if they are largely amassing a defensive patent portfolio. A desire for openness does not mean unilateral disarmament in the face of enemies who are very willing to use every status quo legal tool to.prevent openness.

Agreed. Even though Google patents like crazy, I don't recall hearing very much about them suing other people using patents.

What they're doing is trying to make it so that nobody can sue Google over something Google is doing using patents, because Google already patented it.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#95

Post by AnimalMuppet »

gpm wrote: post #4

Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... Direct link to brief: http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/127663/20200... Schedule: Petitioner’s (Google) brief: January 6, 2020 Respondent’s (Oracle) brief: February 12, 2020 Reply (Google) brief: March 13, 2020 Oral Argument: Likely late March, possibly in April, otherwise delayed to October. Ruling: If Oral argument is heard late m…

Sometime before summer, right? Doesn't the court adjourn at the end of June or so?

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#96

Post by AnimalMuppet »

fotcorn wrote: post #66

Question: My understanding is that the Supreme Court is here to interpret the constitution and other laws. When it now decides that Oracle is right and APIs are copyrightable, can't the other parts of the government introduce a new law making APIs not copyrightable again?

Congress can, yes.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#97

Post by smueller1234 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #94
dragonwriter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted” That's not incompatible with openness if they are largely amassing a defensive patent portfolio. A desire for openness does not mean unilateral disarmament in the face of enemies who are very willing to use every status quo legal tool to.prevent openness.

Agreed. Even though Google patents like crazy, I don't recall hearing very much about them suing other people using patents. What they're doing is trying to make it so that nobody can sue Google over something Google is doing using patents, because Google already patented it.

Are you looking for https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ ?

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#98

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pjmlp wrote: post #51

First Google should provide the Java community an platform that actually supports Java language alongside its standard library instead of Google's version of J++, just like the NDK supports C and C++ standard library. None of the other Java vendors has ever had any problem with either Sun or Oracle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines Or just like with Microsoft with J++, they can create their…

The NDK does not (completely) support the C and C++ standard library. Certain parts (name resolution, at least, IIRC) are missing.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#99

Post by AnimalMuppet »

smueller1234 wrote: post #97
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Even though Google patents like crazy, I don't recall hearing very much about them suing other people using patents. What they're doing is trying to make it so that nobody can sue Google over something Google is doing using patents, because Google already patented it.

Are you looking for https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ ?

Not specifically. I'm saying that, as far as I can tell, Google isn't using its patents offensively. Not just in open source, but everywhere.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#100

Post by macspoofing »

pjmlp wrote: post #88
danShumway wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that Google deserves punishment because they didn't buy another company is not one I'm even remotely sympathetic to. The entire industry would be worse off today if our legal policy on APIs was, "they're copyrighted, but don't worry, you can just buy out companies you want to interop with." Imagine how much smaller and how much more uninteresting the tech world would be. Any company that wasn't the size…

Yes I am, if Google was honest regarding Java they should have acquired the language stewardship. I work mostly with commercial software, so IP and patents are business as usual. Maybe even this would finally provide a way for many freetards to actually pay for the tooling they use.

>I work mostly with commercial software, so IP and patents are business as usual.

I work with commercial software, and what Oracle is trying to do is unprecedented and has nothing to do with IP, or patents, or commercial software.

Post reply on HN