Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #15

tasubotadas wrote: post #10

>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. So if Oracle wins here, they will get fu xx ed by Amazon?

Who knows. Does Amazon implement any of Oracle's APIs? This ruling is about to make the software patent mess look like a walk in the park.

> Does Amazon implement any of Oracle's APIs?

They reimplement MySQL for Aurora Serverless, but losing Aurora Serverless MySQL probably hurts Amazon less than losing their S3 clone hurts Oracle, and in any case MySQL is GPL and Amazon doesn't redistribute their implementation, so they are probably within the license anyway.

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

#72

Post by jimbokun » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

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.

> Do we really expect judges in their 60s and 70s to understand basics of coding in order to come to the right conclusion??

Can substitute any field for "coding" above and come to the same conclusion.

Quickly getting up to speed on the terminology and issues of fields in which they have no formal training or first hand experience is a big part of the job description of being a justice.

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

#73

Post by bokononon » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

izacus wrote: post #54

I haven't seen a single positive article about Google from ArsTechnica (and plenty of ones that were overly sensiationalistic, especially aroudn Android which I'm pretty familiar with professionally). Is there any more independent media article describing what went on in the hearing?

https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/07/google_oracle_api/

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

#74

Post by mindcrime » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

Maybe we get lucky and the SCOTUS ruling comes down against uncopyable API's. But while that seems questionable at the moment, it's important to remember one thing: there is always an "out" even in the "nuclear option" case and that is "have Congress change the law".

It seems to me that now is the time to start thinking about putting together a mass effort to get Congress to change copyright law, to establish clearly the semantic distinction between API and implementation, and to make it clear that the API part can be "copied" in the name of interoperability.

No, that's not an easy thing to accomplish, especially without armies of highly paid lobbyists, but I'm guessing that a few big companies - like cough Google cough might be interested in supporting such an effort.

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

#75

Post by jimbokun » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

teruakohatu wrote: post #36

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.

Not even remotely the same. Screw threads, hole sizes, width of timber etc ie. specifications are the same. People make a big deal about beautiful apis. Almost all apis are simply functional. The complexity lies in the implementation not the specification.

API design largely determines whether a performant, correct implementation is even feasible within a given time frame. Setting aside whether or not developers can then successfully use the API to accomplish their goals.

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

#76

Post by tsimionescu » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #13

Aqueous wrote: post #6

This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere. If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? 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…

>> If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? That has implications for language implementations too. Who would own the standard library for any given language? What about programs that call API functions? Are they derivative works too? An API is necessarily functional first and foremost. It would cause chaos and some weird dystopian future if Oracle wins.

The standard library is owned by the people creating it, and of course your work using the standard library is a derived work of that standard library.

For example, glibc is owned by GNU, and it is licensed under the LGPL, so you are allowed to dynamically link it without having to release your own code under the GPL (or compatible). This is all happening today.

The only projects that will be more seriously affected by this decision are WINE and similar - projects that are copying the API but not the implementation. Even here, it is very likely that WINE could win on Fair Use, since their copying is obviously done for interoperability.

Also, APIs are obviously creative human works, and their purpose is first and foremost usability for the end-user.

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

#77

Post by ohmygeek » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

bismuthsalt wrote: post #55

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code is a repeatable (executable) list of instructions that can describe a process. Perform the instructions, execute the process. Processes--and a good example is business processes like SOPs, etc.--have inputs and outputs. An API is a name for that process, plus a description of the required inputs. Can you copyright a name and a description of inputs for a process?

Can you copyright Harry Potter the character? Or can anyone use recognizable Harry Potter reproductions in commercial context, be it alternative books, movies or merchandise?

This is where the confusion lies: Google claims Oracle is copyrighting an interface to Harry Potter (as per your example) -- i.e., they are claiming copyright to any / all characters that are (1) a boy in his early teens (2) has magical powers (3) goes to wizard school.

Now, the question is, where do we draw the line: As per Oracle, there cannot be any other character that does what Harry Potter does.

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

#78

Post by josefx » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

elygre wrote: post #40

Imagine where we'd been if Google just paid Sun a couple hundred million dollars, and then put it's weight behind Java...

Google spend a lot of money on not doing that, while Sun was already working on the completely free OpenJDK.

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

#79

Post by mjw1007 » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

« For decades prior to Oracle's lawsuit, most people in the software industry assumed that APIs couldn't be copyrighted. »

Well, what were they supposed to assume?

It's shameful that it's been 40 years since computer programs were explicitly protected in the US under copyright law, and this remains an unsettled question.

This situation is an extremely poor advertisement for the practice of passing vague laws and letting their boundaries be settled over time by court cases and precedent.

It's painful to have to listen to lawyers argue by an analogy between function declarations and Harry Potter chapter titles.

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

#80

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #22

The questioning seems to imply there's a split among party lines. Is that a coincidence or is there some political aspect to this?

> The questioning seems to imply there's a split among party lines. Is that a coincidence or is there some political aspect to this?

A little bit of both; the right is more inclined to strong, especially commercial, property rights even for things like copyright that are expressly, both Constitutionally and statutorily, bounded and contingent, while the left is (from a judicial perspective) generally more supportive of public interest limitations in general and fair use, which while statutorily enshrined was judicially created based on the First Amendment before being written into statute, in particular.

That said, its far from a perfect mapping and you'll often see splits that don't follow party lines in copyright, and the late Justice Ginsberg, while one of the more liberal justices on the court, was known to favor strong copyright.

in general, outside of perennial hotbutton issues that are permanently both highly politically salient, stable in partisan orientation, and at the focus of judicial selection, which copyright very much is not any of, divisions of the court aren't strongly determined by party even when they happen to align with party.