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

#451

Post by galaxyLogic » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

andrewjl wrote: post #440

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…

Having read multiple perspectives, some pro-Google and some pro-Oracle, I cannot reconcile this sort of argument with the Baker v. Selden precedent. [1] Perhaps my understanding of APIs is different because I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, but how is this not an open and shut case? The cookbook analogy is not applicable for the same reason one could not apply it in Baker , accounting methods are not of themselves co…

> accounting methods are not of themselves copyrightable creative works.

True. Neither are 'ways of calling library functions" copyrightable.

But in the case of Java API what was copied was the actual Java-code in which the APIs are expressed.

Because the APIs are "fed" to the compiler as Java source-code, it is clear what was copied was not just the "way library-functions are called".

What was copied was Java SOURCE-CODE which allows a Java compiler to ENFORCE and INTERPRET such calling conventions.

Even if the API was rewritten in another programming language it would be a copyright violation if large parts of the structure of the API meaning how the methods are organized into classes and interfaces and how they refer to each other, was copied. That would clearly be a work of art that deserves copyright protection, in my view.

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

#452

Post by Wowfunhappy » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:46 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #390

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is, in fact, precisely how the court is theoretically supposed to work. The two-dimensional partisan framing—which, unfortunately, is very real in other domains—is what's causing the court to break down.

Is the court breaking down?

Kind of, yeah. Supreme court justices aren't elected, are appointed for life, and collectively have veto power over basically any law, should they choose to break (or gradually discard) historical norms.

I think it's telling that neither Biden nor Harris was willing to rule out court-packing at the presidential debates, and at this point I think they're right to leave it on the table! But, it really would mark the beginning of the end of the Supreme Court. It's easy to predict what would probably happen the next time power changed...

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

#453

Post by happythomist » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:46 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…

One solution might be for the Supreme Court to acknowledge that APIs are copyrightable, but that re-implementations are always fair use.

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

#454

Post by mumblemumble » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

andrewjl wrote: post #440

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…

Having read multiple perspectives, some pro-Google and some pro-Oracle, I cannot reconcile this sort of argument with the Baker v. Selden precedent. [1] Perhaps my understanding of APIs is different because I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, but how is this not an open and shut case? The cookbook analogy is not applicable for the same reason one could not apply it in Baker , accounting methods are not of themselves co…

The Google v. Oracle argument hinges on Structure, Sequence, and Organization[1]. Things like the actual package structure arguably involve creative decisionmaking, and are not strictly analogous to something like accounting methods. For example, even if the idea of a max() function that takes two integers and returns the larger of the two is not copyrightable, the specific name "java.lang.Math.max()" might still be. Especially if you're talking about not just one function, but some enormous number of methods in some large number of classes across 37 different packages.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...

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

#455

Post by andrewjl » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #451

andrewjl wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read multiple perspectives, some pro-Google and some pro-Oracle, I cannot reconcile this sort of argument with the Baker v. Selden precedent. [1] Perhaps my understanding of APIs is different because I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, but how is this not an open and shut case? The cookbook analogy is not applicable for the same reason one could not apply it in Baker , accounting methods are not of themselves co…

> accounting methods are not of themselves copyrightable creative works. True. Neither are 'ways of calling library functions" copyrightable. But in the case of Java API what was copied was the actual Java-code in which the APIs are expressed. Because the APIs are "fed" to the compiler as Java source-code, it is clear what was copied was not just the "way library-functions are called". What was copied was Java SOURCE…

From the Baker opinion:

"The conclusion to which we have come is, that blank account-books are not the subject of copyright; and that the mere copyright of Selden's book did not confer upon him the exclusive right to make and use account-books, ruled and arranged as designated by him and described and illustrated in said book." [1]

I believe based on this reasoning, copying APIs or copying code is a distinction without a difference, so long as it's in the context of calling library functions.

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/

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

#456

Post by marta_morena_29 » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

andrewjl wrote: post #440

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…

Having read multiple perspectives, some pro-Google and some pro-Oracle, I cannot reconcile this sort of argument with the Baker v. Selden precedent. [1] Perhaps my understanding of APIs is different because I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, but how is this not an open and shut case? The cookbook analogy is not applicable for the same reason one could not apply it in Baker , accounting methods are not of themselves co…

> I do not believe API design of a math library is in any way the same level, having designed hundreds of APIs and several SDKs myself.

Oh given that the APIs were "designed" by Oracle, that stance might be relatable. However, designing actually "good" APIs will turn out equally complex if not more complex than arranging some recipes in a cookbook. Most stuff that Oracle does falls more into the category of a "monkey throwing dart arrows at random code snippets" and then suing the heck out of anyone who breaks their copyright or licenses (Oracle doesn't make software, they make licenses and that's how they earn money. The software is secondary).

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

#457

Post by az226 » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:51 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #366

az226 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we have copyright protections to begin with is to reward and incentivize creation of new creative works with intellectual property protections. If you spent a large amount of resources in creating the library of Java code, why should only the implementation be protected? They've spent a lot of resources to come up with which methods to create, what to call them, how to describe them, how to organize them,…

It’s mind blowing to me that Google was too cheap to buy a license or buy Sun considering the strategic importance of the platform.

Oracle had asked for a sum that was super reasonable and Google decided to roll the dice instead. Incredibly foolish. In the grand scheme, what's a $10B fine on a business worth hundreds of billions. Google had to get to market fast and it was an existential threat.

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

#458

Post by andrewjl » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #450

andrewjl wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read multiple perspectives, some pro-Google and some pro-Oracle, I cannot reconcile this sort of argument with the Baker v. Selden precedent. [1] Perhaps my understanding of APIs is different because I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, but how is this not an open and shut case? The cookbook analogy is not applicable for the same reason one could not apply it in Baker , accounting methods are not of themselves co…

I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic I design an API for graphical coding and spend significant creative energy choosing the right words, calling conventions, result types to not only make something intuitive, but emotionally pleasurable to code with Sometimes I'll spend days writing out possible forms of t…

> I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic

I disagree. I think the specification can be, but the API code itself is a mechanical translation of the specification into computer code. Note that abstractions, names, etc are conceived in the specification and are then translated into computer code. Even if you skip the specification step, as sometimes is done, you're then dealing with an implicit, ad-hoc specification.

Edit: To clarify what I'm saying, the "creative design" aspect of what you're talking about and that I'm in no way denying, is meant to be protected via the patentability and not the copyrightability of the end product. The creativity is in the behavior not in the mechanical translation of the behavior for computers to use.

> APIs aren't just restricted simple functions and types. Some may involve the creation of a custom DSL to make it easy to declare functionality in part of your system, or clusters of protocols that work together in very specific ways so users can implement a complex system atop them

Indeed. Yet you're still describing behavior here. A DSL is an example of a specification of one language in terms of another. This is a creative work, I strongly agree! The difference is where does the creativity reside? I don't believe it's in the API code, but in the specification whether written or unwritten and therefore implied.

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

#459

Post by ledauphin » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

blunte wrote: post #393

1123581321 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are describing Supreme Court clerks with your first suggestion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_law_clerks_of_the_S...

I find it hard to believe that even a top performing law school grad would be a subject matter expert comparable to a 5 or 10+ year developer for this topic.

(speaking as a software developer) this dramatically underestimates the intelligence of top lawyers relative to average software developers, and also misunderstands the facts of how law works (the subject matter expertose required is still mostly in law rather than in software development).

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

#460

Post by sjy » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 11:54 PM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #190

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…

Everyone freaks out about social issues with SCOTUS (which is understandable), but their real impact is on economics. The destruction they've laid on the labor movement and help for big businesses is immense. Just look at the commentary around overturning Chevron deference and non-delegation. Absolutely apocalyptic.

Could you explain what you mean here? I assume from your reply to 'rayiner that you are criticising recent decisions limiting Chevron deference and applying the nondelegation doctrine. It’s confusing, because big business won the case establishing Chevron deference. Whether the principle helps big business or not depends on big business’s relationship with the relevant regulator. Is the “apocalyptic” commentary describing the past effects of Chevron deference, the current effects of limiting it, or the potential effects of future decisions further limiting it?