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

161–170 of 771 posts

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

#161

Post by rlewkov »

nradov wrote: post #117
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's not really the court's responsibility. There is no legal definition of "interface" or "implementation". They're just trying to interpret a gray area in the law and it could come down either way. Any real solution will have to be legislated.

"Any real solution will have to be legislated. " So true. Congress can amend the particular section of the code to explicitly exclude APIs from being copyrightable ... if they want to.

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

#162

Post by lern_too_spel »

tsimionescu wrote: post #76
phkahler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

The C standard library's API would belong to AT&T. Same with Unix syscalls. Glibc would be infringing.

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

#163

Post by dredmorbius »

jbullock35 wrote: post #62

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 au…

Worth noting Lee wrote for WashPo. As did Krebs.

I suspect this has less to do with reporters than editors.

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

#164

Post by ballenf »

fdye wrote: post #147
interestica wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think the playbook is just a bad analogy because it misses that point of what an interface is. It's the means of connecting two dissimilar mechanisms. A translation layer.

I'd have argued it's more like copyrighting doorknob placement (opposite hinge, at hand height) and operation (twisting) on doors vs. patenting a novel mechanism inside the doorknob.

A football playbook is more like the blueprints of the inside of the doorknob. Of course it's patentable if playbooks are patentable (I presume they are if considered works of choreography as in a dance).

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

#165

Post by pc86 »

x3ro wrote: post #132
beerandt wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"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 trans…

This is a strawman. The argument wasn't that no left-leaning people would treat things as property, but that most conservatives would. As such, you're not attacking the actual argument with your point.

It's not a strawman at all, as the original statement is clearly setting up the flip side of that argument - that left-leaning justices are less likely to do so.

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

#166

Post by grasshopperpurp »

beerandt wrote: post #94
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 trans…

I'm no expert on RBG, but I always pegged her as a Neo-Lib, rather than a Leftist.

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

#167

Post by gojomo »

syspec wrote: post #139

> 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. Oracle themselves are doing it, could someone with a better legal mind explain to me how this doesn't make the case simpler to decide? Is it that they're saying, it should be illegal but sinc…

As far as I know, Amazon isn't objecting. So, Oracle can say: we're "doing it" with permission.

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

#168

Post by CameronNemo »

sterwill wrote: post #121
rdsnsca wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually screw heads are copyrighted, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives#Robertson

Copyrights are not patents, and your link asserts that the Robertson screw design is patented, not copyrighted. The Google vs. Oracle case is about copyrights.

Right. Google's lawyer brought up the distinction at least a couple times, saying that the novelty of the API might be patentable but not copyrightable.

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

#169

Post by DubiousPusher »

doesnotexist wrote: post #128

Should Oracle win this case, I predict that Free Software licenses will emerge as the clear market choice. Licenses that enshrine interoperability along with the freedom to modify or reimplement in part or wholesale will suddenly provide significantly more value over non-Free software which will be a proprietary minefield and the value will not be for technical but purely from legal liability. Anyone setting out to d…

I look forward to all the unnecessary type casting we will get to do so public interfaces don't infringe. System.Out.Println(byte []) is my new favorite function on Android.
Post reply on HN