Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.google

111–116 of 116 posts

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

#111
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.

Where is name resolution (of what, DNS?) on ISO C and ISO C++ standard?

POSIX is neither part of ISO C nor ISO C++.

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

#112
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is coming from a whole lot more than just Google. They are the ones who will lose money in the immediate lawsuit, but we all stand to suffer if Oracle's interpretation of the law is held up. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the entire software community who has weighed in on this to support google in the form of amicus briefs (which I really do encourage you to read). Here is a partial list of other g…

I very strongly support Google’s side of this case. But them claiming to champion open innovation is incredibly condescending and frankly bullshit. They’re pursuing this case exclusively for financial motives (which I don’t think there’s anything wrong with to be clear). But the fact that there’s some public good behind it is just a happy coincidence for their marketing department. They’d just as happily be on Oracle…

A lot of the modern web exists on tech that google open sourced. Something it didn't need to do and would have been a huge competitive advantage to it if they had kept it closed source even after they had moved on to something better.

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

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

>Google didn't copy code. Yes they did.

No, they didn't. If you're referring to the infamous 9 lines of code:

  private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex {
     if (fromIndex > toIndex)
          throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
               ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
     if (fromIndex  arrayLen) 
          throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
  }
that was removed in Android 4.0 and is no longer being litigated as part of the case. Google is not being sued for stealing code -- Oracle agreed way back in 2012 not to pursue statuary damages for those lines.

The appeal courts reversal of Alsups decision in 2014 was on the basis of copying the API. They wrote "that the overall structure of Oracle's API packages is creative, original, and resembles a taxonomy"[0].

You're conflating two separate issues, copying implementation code vs copying an API -- copying the implementation was resolved in 2012. Copying the API is still being litigated. If you have a docket or ruling or source that says otherwise, then of course feel free to list it.

Or if you want to make the argument that declarative headers for an API are technically code, then... OK, whatever, fine. But it's still wildly deceptive to conflate declarative code and implementation code without mentioning that the law has treated them separately for decades. You're making it sound to a normal reader like Google wholesale lifted implementation logic from Java, which is just not what happened.

[0]: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140509135

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

#114
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I never cared for WINE, and Microsoft doesn't take that path just because they don't care about WINE. After all, when it is the year of Desktop Linux actually? IBM tried to sue everybody, they just lost the case because Compaq was clever doing a clean room reverse engineering. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp... > Their first attack came in the form of lawyers using 9,000 IBM copyrights in…

Google also did a clean room reverse engineering. Or at least clean enough that the jury voted to acquit Google of copying the Java source code, and Oracle has not appealed that claim--meaning Oracle concedes that at this point.

The only thing that Oracle claims Google has done at this point is copied the API, which anyone who wishes to do a clean room reverse engineering would also have to do. Oracle is trying to get a judgement that makes such clean room reverse engineering impossible, which is why everyone else is freaking out about this case and asking SCOTUS to reverse CAFC and Oracle here.

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

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google didn't copy code. Yes they did.

No, they didn't. If you're referring to the infamous 9 lines of code: private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex { if (fromIndex > toIndex) throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")"); if (fromIndex arrayLen) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex); } that was removed in Android 4.0 and is no longer being litigated as part of the c…

>copying implementation code vs copying an API

You said code. Not implementation code.

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

#116
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Groklaw was a daily read for me in the Caldera era. :-)

You are supposed to confuse Caldera with SCO. But you didn't. GL was one of the best daily reads there ever was.

I bought Caldera Linux in a box at one point in my life. I also wasn't the founder, but the first team member of a Linux distribution, and the thing was very, VERY personal to me.
Post reply on HN