Google should have bought Sun.
Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
151–160 of 771 posts
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#152It's not like all hinges on oral arguments. Lots of organizations informed the court in this case, about the issues at hand:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#153This 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…
> This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere.
Not in the EU where there is precedence with SAP/R3 saying APIs are not copyrightable.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#154Let's say Google loses... badly. What will be the practical consequences for us software engineers?
The consequences will be that people will only use open standards and languages. Proprietary languages and APIs will be shunned because you'll be permanently locked in with compatible alternatives illegal.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#155[deleted]
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I wish I could believe this is how it would actually play out in reality.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#157I started reading this article today thinking that the case was clear-cut - Oracle's wrong and Google is right. As I read the article and the comments I'm now not at all sure. We all are trying to come up with a good analogy to explain why APIs are distinct from implementations, why it's 'obvious' to a programmer how they're distinct, and how their rules should be distinct. But the more I think about it, and read fee…
This could be easily explained using an analogy like a pipe. If you need to connect a hose to your house, the connector (interface) needs to match the spigot size and threads. The API is simply the information about the size and thread measurement, along with the knowledge that you can get water out of it when you turn the handle. Having this knowledge and building compatible hoses or spigots doesn’t mean you have st…
That is a terrible analogy since the potential conceptual range of APIs is so wide and because it does disservice to the conceptual power of APIs.
Good APIs embody the key architectural and conceptual decisions. They define the key concepts and how they interact. But at the level of a programming language, this is of immense scope and power. Java defines an imperative language with built in garbage collection with abstraction from physical hardware.
Furthermore, the real distinction between API and implementation is that API are that which needs to be exposed to the world.
Programming languages are more akin to defining the fundamental laws of a universe. Physics to chemistry.
It is true that other APIs are of much smaller scope but the point is that the range is so wide.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#158I am really not up on copyright law, but I see this as analogous to someone writing a book. Say I wrote a book and titled all of my chapters the same as another book, the book was given a different title and the chapters themselves where very different on the inside but naturally my table of contents looks exactly the same, would this be considered infringe in the publishing world (I don't know)? Also based on that:…
Books are not equivalent to software because software has a functional purpose. While programming has creative elements, the primary goal of a program is to achieve certain functions (whereas the primary goal of a book is to enable creative expression or to record factual information).
If I want to support a Windows program on Linux I have no choice but to implement the Windows API. Likewise, if I want to interface with a program that stores data in S3, I have to replicate the S3 API.
That's why I think that there's no good analogy for software APIs among traditional media.
As far as the law goes, Google's argument is that because software APIs are arbitrary choices and necessary to be copied for interoperability that software APIs are noncopyrightable under section (b) of this statute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is usually in the interest of the designer of the API to have as many users as possible. When they first design and publish it yes, but Oracle didn't design and publish the Java APIs, they bought them after they had becomes very popular and widely used. At that point they don't need to care about making it popular, it already is, all they care about is milking that existing ecosystem for every penny they can get.…
I know, I know. But if the argument is abstract then we have to keep it so.
In a market-consolidating world this argument rapidly loses persuasive power.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#160This 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.
Another interesting take: Machine architectures expose an API, and it may become impossible for anyone but a chip manufacturer to distribute a compiler.