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

#291

Post by kps » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #135

joshuamorton wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But now if I write my own libc implementation, someone (who?) could come after me for violating their copyright on the libc api.

> who? That's an interesting question. Perhaps K&R? Or maybe their employer? Or perhaps by now the copyright may be with ANSI/ISO? But this does raise an interesting point, about who would own copyright on something that was not believed to be copyrightable for much of its history.

The current owner would probably be Micro Focus, from acquiring Attachmate from acquiring Novell from acquiring Unix System Laboratories from AT&T.

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

#292

Post by sangnoir » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #92

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.

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.

Interoperability is not limited to executable-interop: it includes developer knowledge, libraries and tooling - which are exactly the reasons Google chose to use Java (the language). Dalvik checked all those boxes, without being bytecode-compatible with the JVM

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

#293

Post by colejohnson66 » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #280

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…

If APIs become copyrightable, we just have to change our strategy a little bit. Instead of making a compatible API, you write a program to modify other programs, which detects calls to the target API and transforms them to a shim that is not copyrighted, which can call either the copyrighted API or your new API.

I don’t think that would work as it could be construed as a derivative work

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

#294

Post by extropy » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #282

Analemma_ wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It will depend a lot on how wide a decision SCOTUS makes, and that fair use is interpreted in a very different way. Wine is not a windows replacement nor can Microsoft really show any negative impact on the market for windows license sales because of Wine. Wine (recursive backronym for Wine Is Not an Emulator) is "simply" a compatibility layer that convert between Windows ABI calls into native linux system calls. Win…

Wine allows running windows applications without windows lincense, directly taking revenue from Microsoft who arguably invested a ton in making documentation and developer tools to make those applications.

It seems you are arguing mainly because the user base is so much smaller it does not count. The law does not work that way.

Windows SDK contains tens of thousands of lines in header files for those DLLs Wine implements. Not saying Wine copied them outright, but the opportunity is clearly there.

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

#295

Post by SiVal » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

hugi wrote: post #269

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…

If I'd publish a cookbook with the same chapters and recipe names as a different cookbook, but every recipe my own creation from scratch; I wouldn't consider that copyright infringement.

Maybe, but imagine the original cookbook as a website with hundreds of pages of recipe titles and descriptions, each with a link to the body of the recipe. Someone clones those hundreds of pages, replacing only the domain name in the links. Now is it copyright infringement?

Can designing an API be a different job from implementing a design? If so, then maybe the work product of the designer is copyrightable on its own.

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

#296

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #293

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If APIs become copyrightable, we just have to change our strategy a little bit. Instead of making a compatible API, you write a program to modify other programs, which detects calls to the target API and transforms them to a shim that is not copyrighted, which can call either the copyrighted API or your new API.

I don’t think that would work as it could be construed as a derivative work

Doubt it. But since I don't have millions of dollars or a need to litigate this in court at the moment, neither of us will know any time soon.

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

#297

Post by monocasa » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

chabad360 wrote: post #231

smnrchrds wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It helps. Didn't MP3 patents expire recently? MP3 is far from obsolete.

Your thing of the MP4 patents.

It was 2017 that the last MP3 patents expired, which is pretty recent, IMO. It was patented on the encode side about 10 years longer than on the decode side.

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

#298

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

granzymes wrote: post #278

dragonwriter wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I think that's somewhat unlikely; I think its somewhat more likely that the court concludes that the Federal Circuit erred in using de novo review, but instead of remanding to the Federal Circuit for reasonableness re…

I gave more weight to a remand than SCOTUS upholding the trial verdict itself primarily because the court is currently shorthanded. I agree that the court prefers to punt for good !

> I gave more weight to a remand than SCOTUS upholding the trial verdict itself primarily because the court is currently shorthanded.

I think you are correct that it is more likely for that reason than it would otherwise be, though I still think its less likely than a more permanent punt on the case (that would still leave the issue live for a future case.)

But that's just my intuition.

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

#299

Post by TheMblabla » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

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 think the CEO of Sun knew this..

"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 possible.'"

https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-androi...

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

#300

Post by Gibbon1 » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

drstewart wrote: post #217

neves wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Democratic Party would be considered center-right in any other country of the world, but the USA.

The DNC would be center right in Saudi Arabia? By what metric? What is with the ridiculous hyperbole that's so common when talking about America on the internet, especially by non-Americans? Talk about "American exceptionalism" - just in a different way.

If the House of Saud tried to impose Obamacare there would be a revolt.