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

#91

Post by goodluckchuck » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #75

teruakohatu wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, it’s like patenting the ingredient list instead of the recipe. It ignores the process and says no ones allowed to cook any combination of fish, flour, potato, milk, and eggs.

The unique food might be fish balls, but it also covers fish and chips, and a million other things that could be done with that API.

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

#92

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #68

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google wasn't interested in interoperability. A big part of why they allegedly walked away from Java licensing was Oracle wanted Android to actually run Java apps, and Google wanted to basically fork off, but just benefit from the developer community around the Java language.

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

#93

Post by sthomas1618 » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

Let's say Google loses... badly. What will be the practical consequences for us software engineers?

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

#94

Post by beerandt » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

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…

>>"that the conservative majority is predisposed to treat everything as property..."

This is misleading at best.

For example: RBG, despite her left-leaning reputation, was easily one of, if not the, most pro-copyright and pro-IP justices on the bench. (Relatedly, she also was pretty pro big business, which rarely fits the portrayed narrative.)

Not all areas of law, especially at the Supreme Court level, easily translate into right/left politics.

https://www.law360.com/articles/1312244/ginsburg-remembered-...

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2020/09/23/justice...

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

#95

Post by zepto » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

SloopJon wrote: post #14

I saw one question from Gorsuch quoted in reports about the arguments that bothered me: "What do we do about the fact that the other competitors, Apple, Microsoft ... have, in fact, been able to come up with phones that work just fine without engaging in this kind of copying?" macOS and iOS (and indeed Apple itself) would not exist as we know them today, if at all, without very liberal cross pollination of APIs. In a…

You say GNU would not exist, which is true in it’s current form. But that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have had a Unix-like (although not strictly compatible) free system.

It’s also true that Safari couldn’t have used XMLHttpRequest unless Microsoft had licensed it. But that might have sped up the incorporation of an open standard alternative.

It would definitely have created a different history to the one we have now if APIs were assumed to be copyrighted, but it’s not reasonable to just assume that everything that has been based on them would not have been built some other way.

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

#96

Post by flomo » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:45 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...

Essentially the core issue here.

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

#97

Post by stephen82 » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

This is not good...not good at all!

If Oracle wins, to me with zero knowledge around copyright laws and legalese topics, means small to medium companies will close down out of fear of getting sued for using or implementing a competitor's APIs.

Not only that, it feels like the whole technological "civilization" will collapse after this and I'm not exaggerating, because thousands of people will lose their job simply because companies will prefer to close down than go to court with huge companies the size of IBM, Amazon, Alphabet, and Oracle to name a few, and that thought alone lead to financial meltdown...as if we didn't have enough problems already with the pandemic!

If we continue like this, it would feel like living in "Minority Report", that we could get sued for simply thinking about implementing a competitor's API!

On the positive side, I'm quite curious to see where this could go.

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

#98

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

warkdarrior wrote: post #89

gwd wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because Oracle implemented the S3 API in order to be compatible with Amazon, while Google didn't implement the Java API in order for Android apps to be compatible with server-side Java code.

Both reimplement for compatibility at some level in the toolchain, why fair use analysis would privilege one level of interoperability over another is purely speculative; arguably, the kind of user-interoperability Oracle does is more of an assault on the market for what is reimplemented (that's the whole purpose of Oracle doing it) than what Google is doing, and that's a factor that weighs against fair use.

It is important to realize that since APIs have never been viewed as copyrightable previously, we also, if Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, will have zero case law that is directly on point for any API reimplementation being fair use. Speculating on the law that will develop in that area is fun, but almost by definition not strongly grounded.

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

#99

Post by exrook » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

I'd highly encourage anyone interested in this case to hear the oral arguments for themselves, you can listen to them here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-ameri...

While I believe that it would be better for society if the court sides with Google, I personally think that APIs can be a creative work, and thus would have copyright protection under the law. However one of Google's arguments is that Oracle is trying to use copyright to acquire a patent-like right, referencing the case of Baker v. Selden[0]. Despite being from 1879(!) I found this case to be especially relevant and I'm quite interested to see how the court will consider it into their opinion.

In his arguments, Oracle's lawyer argues that declaring code is not distinguishable from implementing code and thus deserves all the same copyright protections. As a programmer I find this argument quite unconvincing, as there is clearly a technical distinction in many systems, see: .h files, dynamic linking, etc.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden

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

#100

Post by garaetjjte » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #50

garaetjjte wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Why it should? It would mean that implementing commercial Java runtime without Oracle license is not possible?

Whether usage is commercial or not is a big part of the first factor in the fair use test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_charac... You could arguably implement Java without a license from Oracle provided you were using the GPL, as OpenJDK is released under the JDK, and presumably includes the entire Java API. The problem for Google, of course, is OEMs would've balked at being forced to open so…

>would've balked at being forced to open source all of their proprietary modifications to Android

OpenJDK have linking exception, so it doesn't apply. In fact Android uses OpenJDK now. It also makes Oracle case looks phoney, suing Google for Java usage while having released freely available OpenJDK.

But that's not the point, I think implementing API/ABI/protocols/whatever should be allowed whether or not vendor wants it. There are many reimplementations of competitors APIs, and ruling in favor of Oracle would basically break that. Under that interpretation Wine would be in danger too, as significant part of Wine development is commercial (by CodeWeavers making their CrossOver product).