Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

141–150 of 771 posts

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

#141
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…

So if Oracle implements a proprietary API in GPL software does that mean that all Oracle software is copyleft?

This is a great question. In the last ten years of this shenanigans I’ve not seen it asked. As an owner of GPL’d APIs, it’s food-for-thought.

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

#142
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…

APIs being copyrightable doesn't actually harm implementations of APIs that fall under fair use. (Fair use exemptions specifically apply to copyrighted things.) Interoperability is fair use. 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. Things like WINE or NES emulators or the like would fall very comfortably into…

Things like WINE or NES emulators or the like would fall very comfortably into fair use.

That is not at all clear.

But given that Android is not fair use (it's not interoperable

How is it not? Lots of code written for the JVM will build and run unmodified on Android. Not 100%, but WINE isn't 100% compatibile either.

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

#143
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blueprint describes the thing that is to be built. API describes how two parties talk to each other. I'd say API is closer to a protocol or a contract than it is to architectural blueprint.

Well a blueprint communicates from the architect to the builder/carpenter/plumber etc...

Then the blueprint is the contents of the communication, not the method of communication itself.

The blueprint would be communicated by mail or sneakernet.

You can copyright the contents of an email (indeed, I think they have an implicit copyright, don't they?), but you can't copyright the way in which emails in general are transmitted and exchange. (That would probably be a matter for patent.)

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

#144
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…

APIs being copyrightable doesn't actually harm implementations of APIs that fall under fair use. (Fair use exemptions specifically apply to copyrighted things.) Interoperability is fair use. 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. Things like WINE or NES emulators or the like would fall very comfortably into…

> Interoperability is fair use.

What about improving the API? E.g. some languages may be mostly but not 100% compatible with existing languages and provide more or less the same API but not be 100% the same - both the in the runtime library (API) and the language itself.

For example Free Pascal is mostly compatible with Delphi but not the same and its runtime library is mostly the same as Delphi but also not the same.

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

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Copyright law already allows you to copyright specific combinations of unprotectable elements. It's called thin copyright, it's why Katy Parry got sued and lost, and it's software application is called Structure, Sequence, and Organization (SSO). You can in fact claim copyright on all characters that look like Harry Potter, because the standard for copyright infringement is "access and substantial similarity". This is because if your copyright doesn't extend to someone blatantly tracing over your work, then it's not a copyright.

You specifically need to argue that the API itself - the specific combination of types in a specific order, with a given set of Unicode or ASCII characters to identify it - is not copyrightable, not just that it's made up of uncopyrightable things. This is harder, because this same practice in other contexts (e.g. music, literature, and so on) is very much protectable. You need to argue that software is different.

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

#146
post #138

> Jonathan Schwartz's (CEO of Sun when Google re-implemented the Java APIs): > "Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun." > "'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software. 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people...we wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as pos…

This has been brought up many times in many of the cases. IIRC, it has repeatedly been ignored as not an official statement (same w/ his past blog posts) and that the original intent is unrelated to whether they are protectable.

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

#147
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…

> Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. It's why silly (and inadequate) analogies emerge: "Justice Clarence Thomas compared Google's copying of the Java APIs to a football team taking a rival's playbook."

What really sucks is this was a perfect time for a lawyer to use Justice Thomas' analogy to better explain the difference. I would have tried something like:

"Close your honor, but let me expand on this further. Imagine instead that your opponent publishes their calls and they are regularly available to all individuals of the general public. However, while they may describe a call for going long, they do not give any specifics if the receiver starts from the left, center, right side of the field, how fast he should go, who should block for him, etc. They essentially are just assigning a call to a general concept of 'go long'. Now as a competitor team, I look through their publicly available calls and say "Hey, thats a good idea, we should have a call for 'go long' as well". However, in practice my team does start from the left, and then cut in the center of the field to receive the ball. This may, or may not be totally different then what my opponents choose to do when they call "go long" The additional benefit is if I transfer a new coach onto my team, he can use the call "go long" and even though the team accomplishes the goal, possibly by a different route, he can make the call to accomplish essentially the same thing."

Note: Not a huge sports guys, so perhaps my football analogy broke down a bit there, but hopefully you get the idea.

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

#148
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…

So if Oracle implements a proprietary API in GPL software does that mean that all Oracle software is copyleft?

Oracle will no longer be able to use an SQL based language as IBM will have ownership of the API.

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

#149

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 be…

One question from a judge was that if “API is copyrightable” is bad, why didn’t we see sky falling in last 4 years since federal court decided so?

Because the vast majority of tech companies disagree with the law, and were probably expecting SCOTUS to overturn the case. When they realize that they're leaving money on the table, then we're going to see claims and counterclaims all over the place.
Post reply on HN