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

251–260 of 771 posts

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

#251

Post by Analemma_ »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #244
c-smile wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should Oracle win this case, ... Free Software ... Hmmm... First Free Software project that will dye after this is WINE that implements Windows API ( https://www.winehq.org/ )

Not at all. Please read page 14 of the amicus curiae brief in support of Google by Microsoft ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/128381/2020... ). Here is the relevant paragraph: """ In another example from the 1990s, an open-source developer created a program called WINE, which al- lowed developers to enable Windows applications to run on computers that used the Linux open-source system, without expli…

Companies don't bother with principled consistency, and so I wouldn't expect any from Microsoft if this goes Oracle's way. It's totally possible that Microsoft thinks APIs being non-copyrightable is good for them on net, but that if SCOTUS decides otherwise that they might as well go crush WINE anyway since they now have the means.

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

#252

Post by granzymes »

nodamage wrote: post #240

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to be surprised by this, I got the exact same impression from the hearing. The problem for Google on the copyrightability front is that "compilations" of non-copyrightable items can be copyrightable even if the underlying items themselves are not, if the "selection, coordination, or arrangement" of those items involves sufficient creativity to be considered an "original work…

I wouldn’t be surprised if Oracle wins on copyright (I think it is almost impossible for Google to count to 5 on their merger doctrine argument) but I disagree that fair use is a long shot.

The justices that brought up the case’s procedural history were all unanimously skeptical that the Federal Circuit correctly set aside the fair use verdict in favor of Google. I think the most likely outcome of this case (especially with the absence of Justice Ginsburg) is a remand to the Federal Circuit with instructions to pay more attention to the trial court’s findings.

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

#254

Post by slaymaker1907 »

granzymes wrote: post #229

The article mentions that Google faced some tough questions on their merger doctrine argument (that because there was only one way to implement the declaring code Oracle can’t preclude Google from reusing it) but it doesn’t really mention the fact that Oracle faced much tougher questioning on their procedural argument that the Federal Circuit correctly overturned the district court jury decision. Listening to the ora…

The important part is that the Federal Circuit overturned the decision of a jury which is not generally allowed. If it was just a lower court judge, they could make that kind of ruling without much controversy. The reasonable person argument just seems like an excuse to overturn the decision of a jury. If there were problems with the process, that can be used to overturn the jury decision.

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

#255

Post by akerro »

nindalf wrote: post #183
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…

AWS licenses it's client library as under the Apache License. ( https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java/blob/master/LICENSE.txt ) Doesn't that mean anyone can build an interoperable service? I can then benefit from other cloud providers implementing the same API. I don't need access to AWS' source code, I wasn't going to deploy a private cloud anyway. All I want is robust competition.

Using a client is different than reimplementing compatible classes.

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

#256

Post by DoctorOW »

aninteger wrote: post #242
c-smile wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should Oracle win this case, ... Free Software ... Hmmm... First Free Software project that will dye after this is WINE that implements Windows API ( https://www.winehq.org/ )

Maybe just in the USA. But also Microsoft is on Google's side here. Also doesn't Microsoft's WSL also have this problem as a "reverse WINE" ?

Except Linux is FOSS so Microsoft has a license to do it.

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

#258

Post by defen »

suby wrote: post #90
tjchear wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that the IRL analogy of API is architectural diagrams. A better analogy for API would be an agreement on how to communicate what needs to be done (and what has been done) between two persons. The aggregate effect of that over thousands of people is a working system, coordinated by the mastermind (programmer) who dictates the actual orchestration of the entire system. If API is copyrightable, I'd love to be…

I like the analogy of computer keyboards. The layout (QWERTY) would be the API, but keyboards differentiate themselves in numerous and substantial ways. It would be unworkable madness if each keyboard manufacturer was required to use a different layout.

My understanding is that QWERTY was developed to solve a mechanical problem with early typewriters in the 19th century (frequent jams). According to wikipedia the inventor spent 5 years developing it. I don't see why he shouldn't have been able to profit from that invention. The only reason we use QWERTY now is due to the fact that early non-mechanical keyboards were designed to be used easily by people who had trained with mechanical ones. If "licensing fees" for QWERTY back then had been an issue, manufacturers would have just used a non-copyrightable ABCD... layout, or paid for QWERTY. I don't see it as a disastrous outcome.

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

#259

Post by pyb »

It would be initially problematic, but I do not believe that an Oracle win would be that disruptive in the long run. What would happen is that API providers would from now on have to provide standardized legal assurances that users are allowed to implement their API (in part or in whole). APIs that do not provide these assurances will go mostly unused.

As an imperfect analogy, think about the fact that many companies no longer want to use GPL code because of the legal ramifications. Open source authors would want their code used at those places use other licenses such as MIT.

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

#260

Post by zaphar »

gojomo wrote: post #167
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.

If this case goes the wrong way Oracle may find itself the subject of a lawsuit.
Post reply on HN