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

461–470 of 771 posts

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

#461

Post by az226 »

pdonis wrote: post #347
cloverich wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> say, a new battery It would be more about copying the batteries terminal structure, such that you could build products compatible with the battery or a battery compatible with the products. It snot about copying the battery, its about supporting interoperability. That's what is at risk here. Sixty seven different kinds of outlets, or arbitrarily expensive ones where the "design" itself is licesned, instead of the c…

> its about supporting interoperability I think this is a very important point. I haven't read all of the briefs in this case, or looked at the arguments presented at the hearing, so I don't know if Google's lawyers stressed this point, but they sure ought to.

Google would lose if they would continue hammering the interop point and the justices would dig deeper. Google only copied a selective set of Oracle's Java libraries. If they were about interop, they would have copied all of them. So no, Google didn't copy the libraries because of interoperability reasons. Google copied them so they would get access to the large developer community and ride the coattails of the successful investments into the Java platform that Oracle made. As one of the justices said, it's a one-way interoperability.

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

#462

Post by gpm »

nodamage wrote: post #412
hugi wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps it shouldn't, but under current law it probably would be. Justice Roberts asked a very similar question during the hearing: Roberts: Let's say someone copies the headings in your brief and they copy the organization in your brief, which sections you put first and how you organize them. Would your argument say that's perfectly fine so long as they write their own text? Google's lawyer didn't really have a grea…

The response to that was that (paraphrased) "headings aren't functional", which really is the whole point.

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

#464

Post by gridspy »

cutler wrote: post #444
surround wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I learned that Java is open source, I had assumed that it was free . I guess I was wrong.

There's open source and really open source, it seems. Just wondering if the ruling will put a bomb under the Java edifice? Maybe it will even pave the way for Kotlin to become the dominant JVM language. One can only dream.

Yes, for the last decade or more commercial companies have been polluting the term "Open Source" to mean "this software takes away all your freedoms, but at least you can read our source code."

This is why the FOSS licenses enshrine Compilation, modification and redistribution also.

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

#465

Post by nodamage »

granzymes wrote: post #252
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 (especial…

You might be right. It seems like Google's most realistic path to victory here will be based on arguing over the legal technicalities related to the standard of review.

I wonder if they win on that front if the Court will be able to dodge the question of API copyrightability in general.

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

#466

Post by meling »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #397
jacobkania wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re misunderstanding your cookie analogy. You can’t copyright a single recipe that contains components of other recipes, but if you had written a book titled “My grandmas chocolate chip cookies from scratch”, where the first recipe is for homemade chocolate chips, the second is for how to grind your own flour for dough, and the third is for combining the previous two into a cookie, then yeah you can copyright that…

> You can’t copyright a single recipe that contains components of other recipes, but if you had written a book titled “My grandmas chocolate chip cookies from scratch”, where the first recipe is for homemade chocolate chips, the second is for how to grind your own flour for dough, and the third is for combining the previous two into a cookie, then yeah you can copyright that particular set of recipes. Suppose I want…

With the recipe analogy, I would say that the API would be the books table of contents. The recipes themselves are the implementation. So the question is, should the book’s toc be copyrightable? That is, is it lawful to write another book with the exact same toc, but with different recipes/implementations...

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

#467

Post by beerandt »

nojito wrote: post #413
beerandt wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure- but then you have to be careful defining labels. Trying to peg a generic one dimensional (left-right) or even two dimensional (social/fiscal) political position on justices is difficult, even with loosely defined labels/ categories. It's much easier to look at justices relative position/ rank on a per-topic basis. Alternatively, and less useful to the general public, but very useful to SCOTUS junkies, is lookin…

scotusblog is biased because they have/had a working relationship with Google.

Idk about Google... But they're biased for more reasons than that.

But they are still an excellent source, and are about as good as it gets compared to most (supposed) non-partisan media these days.

Fwiw, I also believe their bias to be almost entirely unintentional, which is way more than can be said for most sites. For topical seminars, where authors might actually argue for a side, they do a decent job of getting various opinions from multiple sources, even if it's not always exactly balanced 50/50.

And they disclose all cases in which someone might be involved.

Like anything else, you still need to consider the source when reading it.

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

#468

Post by triceratops »

biztos wrote: post #388
cashewchoo wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Personally, I espouse the "copyright should not exist at all" viewpoint. However, I think in the current legal framework, APIs are clearly copyrightable. However, re-implementing the APIs should obviously be allowed under fair use. Remember that copyright exists solely for the purposes of increasing the production of otherwise-easily-copyable works that take time to create but then are "worthless" (i.e. the…

> copyright should not exist at all Copyright is not just about software. Imagine a world in which you write a novel, let's call it Harry Potter, and publish it. And then I see people liking it, so I publish it too, but I can sell it cheaper because I don't have to recoup the costs of having written it. Or imagine you write and record a song, let's call it Revolution. A shoe company can use that exact recording in an…

Some of the greatest works of creative art in human history were created with no copyright. I respect that copyright makes it possible for creators to get paid, but that's not the same as "creative endeavor would vanish without copyright".

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

#469

Post by andrewjl »

mumblemumble wrote: post #454
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…

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.

See my other reply down thread, but my own reading of Baker seems to indicate this specifically is not a factor. 37 packages vs 1 method should make no difference. Copying one ledger template or copying hundreds is not a violation of copyright in the same way, because copyrights don't extend to methods of practice.

I'll have to read up on the SSO stuff as it appears there are more relevant & recent precedent cases there.

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

#470

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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

But that's not what it's about. Lots of things are a work of creative design but not copyrightable. Like a recipe for chocolate chip cookies.

Post reply on HN