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

Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 771 posts

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#61

Post by CodeWriter23 »

sjg007 wrote: post #27
mathraki wrote: post #9

Where are the expert witnesses in this case?? Do we really expect judges in their 60s and 70s to understand basics of coding in order to come to the right conclusion?? I put myself in their shoes, if I had never looked at a line of code I couldn't even start to imagine what an API vs real code is. I'd probably think it's some made up concept that Google is using to save money and circumvent the law.

To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.

Putting studs 16" on center however is not copyrightable.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#62

Post by jbullock35 »

The linked Ars article is excellent, and it's a reminder of how much better Timothy Lee is at covering these issues than the people who cover them for major newspapers. For example, compare his article to the Times article on the same case: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/us/supreme-court-google-o....

It's not enough to say that Lee is writing for a specialized audience while the Times caters to a more general audience. Even after accounting for that, Lee's coverage of the case is superior.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#64

Post by dragonwriter »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17
vlovich123 wrote: post #4

> This is a widespread practice in the software industry. Oracle, for example, re-implemented Amazon's S3 API so that customers who built software for Amazon's cloud platform could easily switch to Oracle's rival cloud platform. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

1. That would probably be considered fair use. 2. The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably dwarf most financial prospects from any API reimplementations that might be at risk.

> That would probably be considered fair use.

Because APIs have never before been considered copyrightable, unless Google wins on fair use in this case, we will have exactly zero on-point case law as to when an API reimplementation is fair use.

Speculating on what would be considered fair use in API re-implementations in that case would be extremely speculative.

> The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably dwarf most financial prospects from any API reimplementations that might be at risk.

Maybe more than existing ones, but is it worth more than the entire strategy of using API reimplementation to stay in the game against Amazon, who is far and away ahead in cloud? Is losing that worth a parasitic claim on Android until Google replaces it with something not subject to that claim?

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#65

Post by CodeWriter23 »

AstralStorm wrote: post #56

The big question here is the distinction between standard and API. If Java is also a standard, then laws applicable to all sorts of standards apply. And this could be a relatively good line of defense. An API itself is not necessarily a standard. More importantly, a distinction would have to be made between a standard and its implementation. Technical argument is whether API is procedural or textual. Procedures canno…

Actually, I'm pretty sure whether Sun defended their copyright is the more relevant fact in this case.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#66

Post by ihatethissite »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17
vlovich123 wrote: post #4

> This is a widespread practice in the software industry. Oracle, for example, re-implemented Amazon's S3 API so that customers who built software for Amazon's cloud platform could easily switch to Oracle's rival cloud platform. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

1. That would probably be considered fair use. 2. The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably dwarf most financial prospects from any API reimplementations that might be at risk.

How do you figure that it would be considered fair use in one case but not the other?

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#68

Post by gwd »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17
vlovich123 wrote: post #4

> This is a widespread practice in the software industry. Oracle, for example, re-implemented Amazon's S3 API so that customers who built software for Amazon's cloud platform could easily switch to Oracle's rival cloud platform. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

1. That would probably be considered fair use. 2. The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably dwarf most financial prospects from any API reimplementations that might be at risk.

> That would probably be considered fair use.

Why would that be considered fair use, and Google's not be? As far as I can tell it's exactly the same situation.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#69

Post by daniel-thompson »

> Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters of these arguments.

I mostly agree with you, but let's give credit where credit is due. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from TFA:

> "[...] since 1992, [courts have said] the application-programming interface, of which the declaring code is a part, is not copyrightable. Implementing codes are. On that understanding, industries have built up around applications that know they can copy only what's necessary to run on the application, but they have to change everything else. That's what Google did here. That's why they took less than 1 percent of the Java code... Everybody knows that APIs, declaring codes, are not copyrightable. Implementing codes are. So please explain to me why we should now upend what the industry has viewed as the copyrightable elements, and has declared that some are methods of operation, and some are expressions. "

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#70

Post by AstralStorm »

pintxo wrote: post #45
sjg007 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.

Staying in this analogy, aren't APIs more like pictures or verbal descriptions of the facade of the building? An API spec will not (necessarily) provide you with any internal implementation detail. Architectural diagrams/design specifications very likely will do.

Therefore what, a block diagram of components? Already copyrightable.
Post reply on HN