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

Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 433 posts

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#131

Post by dragonwriter »

jasode wrote: post #49

>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…

> Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this.

That's not true, there were nine lines of source code (range check) copied verbatim, not counting the 11,500 lines of API declarations.

But the API declarations are source code, too.

> If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to name functions.

That really depends on how Oracle wins, and specifically what rule is articulated.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#133

Post by onion2k »

jasode wrote: post #49

>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…

If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to name functions. We'll have to waste brain cycles coming up and alternative spellings of methods to stay away from copyright infringement.

Or the companies that the developers work for pay the original creator of the API, which is the solution Oracle are angling for.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#134

Post by tachyonbeam »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #101
jasode wrote: post #49

>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…

> If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to name functions. We'll have to waste brain cycles coming up and alternative spellings of methods to stay away from copyright infringement. It's worse than that isn't it? Naming is how you link things. What happens to WINE if it is illegal to use the same names Kernel32 does?

It's bad for programmers everywhere. If Oracle wins, you couldn't reimplement a compatible version of anything that's not open source. You couldn't make a third-party implementation of a corporate-owned programming language without putting yourself at risk.

Imagine you're a company using some Oracle database, and you want to reimplement some component of that system in order to migrate and escape their vendor lock-in... You can't, not without taking a huge legal risk.

In the short term, it's a victory for huge litigious corporations like Oracle. The good thing, I hope, is that in the long term, this will make people distrust closed source software even more. What Oracle wants, and has always wanted, is to bind you in the worst possible form of vendor lock-in. Open source and open standards are the answer. Refuse anything else.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#135

Post by belorn »

bosswipe wrote: post #57

It's shocking to me that two jury trials spent months considering arguments from lawyers and experts from all sides and carefully came to a decision only to have the appeals court throw that all away and impose the opposite ruling, twice. What was the point of the trials? I don't know why the Federal Circuit court is so biased towards maximalist interpretations of IP law but I really hope the Supreme Court slaps it d…

The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 did that. District judges are about geographical boundaries and need to make decisions about every kind of subject area, but Federal Circuit court judges operate based on subject area. That way a patent lawyer that want to be a judge handling patents can go to the Federal Circuit court, and unsurprising a very large portion of Federal Circuit court judges are past lawyers working in industry with companies within the same subject area. As a result it is not very strange that a court packed with past IP lawyers are biased towards maximalist interpretations of IP law.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#136

Post by jasode »

Spivak wrote: post #115
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From everything I've read, Wine would quite clearly be illegal if the court rules in favor of Oracle. I am very worried about this case.

I don't think it would be infringement. The main difference between WINE and Android is where the interoperability integration points are. WINE is using the Windows names for the purposes of allowing Windows programs to run. This is a case where a judge would easily grant fair-use because you have to use the API surface area to provide compatibility for existing programs. Android is using the Java names for the purpo…

>I don't think it would be infringement. The main difference between WINE and Android is where the interoperability integration points are. [...] Android is using the Java names for the purposes of allowing existing Java developers to be _productive_, not so that existing Java programs can run.

>Since Oracle's claim is that Google's use of the Java APIs wasn't to provide compatibility to existing software written in Java but to have a _familiar_ language for Java developers it becomes a novel but normal copyright case.

You're making a distinction between "interopability" and "end user familiarity". But Lotus also sued Borland on the basis of "familiarity" of the menu "names and structure" and they lost. The Supreme Court's 4-4 split decision left the lower appeals court's ruling intact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dev._Corp._v._Borland_In...

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#137

Post by msla »

user5994461 wrote: post #20
donmcronald wrote: post #4

> Those in Oracle's camp say if its copyright is not protected, that will discourage innovation. Look at the way YouTube Content ID encourages innovation and then imagine GitHub Content ID. “Your repository contains 3 copyrighted method calls. You’ve been issued a copyright strike.” I’d love to see every open source repo on the internet go private for 1 day as a demonstration of what could be lost if copyright is all…

Then imagine the outrage from European companies and users getting hit by this ludicrous US copyright thing that doesn't apply to them (the European court rejected oracle claims long ago).

It applies to them the same way the GDPR applies to American companies: If they have sufficient money in the US which can be hit by a judgement, it applies.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#138

Post by cturner »

hyper_reality wrote: post #28
memset wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure I agree with this statement in the absolute. I think about art, and artists as a musician myself. One advantage of copyright is that it does, indeed, give artists recourse when people use their works without compensation. The photographer whose picture was copied and pasted onto an advertisement. The musician trying to sell their first album. You could argue that litigation is too costly for an individu…

The truth is somewhere between your statement and parent's, in my opinion. Copyright is necessary but the laws today are draconian and far too extensive. For works since 1978, copyright lasts for the entire length of the author's life, plus an additional 70 years. The "Mickey Mouse" protection act ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act ) increased this even further for some works. There's a need…

"There's a need to allow artists and writers to make money"

The current system does not satisfy that standard. Artists and writers don't make money due to far-reaching copyright. Musicians make money by selling tickets to concerts and contract performances. Journalists make money from newspaper pay-walls and advertising.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#139

Post by Spivak »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #126
Spivak wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I think a lot of people are talking past this case. If you use the API surface area for the purposes of interoperability with existing software then you're covered and it's not infringement. If you use the API surface area for your own software because you like the design, copying it is easier than coming up with something new, or you want to provide a familiar programming environment to developers then…

> If you use the API surface area for the purposes of interoperability with existing software But wasn't that one of Google's original goals for Android? Making porting existing Java apps easy?

Google is making this case, we'll see if the judges buy it. Just because porting Java apps to Android is easier because Google copied the API doesn't suddenly absolve them when it's Google's intention that will decide this case.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#140

Post by ocdtrekkie »

seanhunter wrote: post #124
kemonocode wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still requires domain-specific knowledge and there are vested interests from both sides. I'm afraid because the world has little to gain and much to lose from the outcome of this case.

These people are experts at getting up to speed on diverse topics and have amazing teams clerking for them and a huge bench of experts to call on. I'm sure the domain-specific knowledge will be fine although the vested interests will clearly be a problem. I have never been involved in a US Supreme Court case but back in 1999 or so I was asked to prep a barrister in the UK on the guts of TCP/IP. I literally jumped in…

This doesn't really surprise me. I think it's a bit of an ego-condition that the tech industry believes because only tech people understand technology that only tech people should be allowed to set policy on it.

In reality, technology (and technology companies) mirror their predecessors in other industries. And often abuses of copyright or antitrust by tech companies really isn't much different than the actions of companies decades ago, just obscured by a layer of technology magic.

Post reply on HN