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

#501

Post by nodamage » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #368

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…

> As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. That act of organization likely implies that the Java API (taken as a whole) constitutes a copyrightable work, even if the individual method signatures are not. The problem with this theory is that class a…

Perhaps I should not have used the recipe analogy as it might be causing unnecessary confusion. But I don't think the situations are all that similar. If an individual recipe is non-copyrightable because it describes a "process, procedure, or method" then a mega-recipe created by combining other recipes together will still be non-copyrightable for the same reason. That's not quite the same thing as curating a set of recipes into a cookbook and thereby exercising creativity in the "selection, coordination, and arrangement" of those recipes.

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

#502

Post by mantap » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #383

mantap wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that exactly what the article is saying about the justices worrying it could "undermine copyright of computer programs"? What is the difference between an API (interface) and implementation? The algorithm. And algorithms are not copyrightable. A lot can be interpreted into the law when it is beneficial for everybody to do so. But interpretation has its limits. Some laws must be made explicit by the legislature.

> What is the difference between an API (interface) and implementation? The algorithm. Not the algorithm. The algorithm is essentially the recipe. The algorithm is merge sort, or depth first search. It's the contract the API gives you, more or less. "This function does merge sort." But there are unlimited possible implementations of merge sort and each one is copyrightable. And one implementation doesn't infringe the…

I don't agree that the steps of an implementation are copyrightable. Different versions of an algorithm are different algorithms. One merge sort algorithm may perform much better than another despite both being merge sort and having the same asymptotic complexity. You could patent a particular version of merge sort.

Copyright protects how code is written not what it does. And the how applies just as much to interfaces as implementations.

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

#503

Post by mLuby » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

penteract wrote: post #438

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…

My least favorite part of the arguments was when the US government representative used the existence of open source licenses that explicitly allow copying declarations to claim that it's not commonly believed that such rights don't exist. "There is a prevalent practice of licensed copying of declarations and often that is done through what is called open-source licensing" ...(6 minutes later) "sometimes, often the li…

> licenses would be a pointless gesture otherwise and the very fact that they are offered with such frequency tends to dispel the idea that there is a common understanding

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

#504

Post by tylersmith » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

penteract wrote: post #438

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…

My least favorite part of the arguments was when the US government representative used the existence of open source licenses that explicitly allow copying declarations to claim that it's not commonly believed that such rights don't exist. "There is a prevalent practice of licensed copying of declarations and often that is done through what is called open-source licensing" ...(6 minutes later) "sometimes, often the li…

He's right. The entire premise of open source licensing is that the work is copyrightable, so it uses the copyright system to enforce the authors distribution requirements.

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

#505

Post by penteract » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #478

penteract wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My least favorite part of the arguments was when the US government representative used the existence of open source licenses that explicitly allow copying declarations to claim that it's not commonly believed that such rights don't exist. "There is a prevalent practice of licensed copying of declarations and often that is done through what is called open-source licensing" ...(6 minutes later) "sometimes, often the li…

it's a good point though

I agree that part of the reason open source software is so popular (particularly for programming language implementations) is so that there is no ambiguity about the fact that people can make adaptations/alternatives without worrying about copyright lawsuits. However it seems very perverse to use the fact that so many people think it would be a bad idea if these interfaces were constrained by intellectual property laws to justify constraining them by intellectual property laws.

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

#506

Post by ColanR » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

gerash wrote: post #435

ColanR wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like it could be compared to breaking up a monopoly. When there's one player in town (Java & Android in the two examples I used), any competing ideas never get a chance to succeed: we're still using variations of Java, probably at this point for historical reasons, and Purism etc. is having a real rough go of it. Look at the failed attempts at competing OSes that various phone manufacturers put out. There were…

Let's take your proposal further and let's say we have 20 different languages (some even with non English characters), runtimes, compilers, build systems, UI guidelines, etc will uniform distribution across the world. So even if you want to publish a software for your home country you'll only be able to reach 5% of population with any single tool chain. Are you willing to learn all those 20 different language/runtime…

> Are you willing to learn all those 20 different language/runtime/tool chains?

No, and that's exactly my point. Because it would be impossible to support everything, developers and corporations might have to aim for more limited reach. I imagine that would lead to a situation where we have 20 different widely supported kernels, 20 different up-to-date web browsers, 20 different modern OSes, etc. I would love to be able to choose from such a diversity of software alternatives - wouldn't you?

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

#507

Post by 101011 » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:10 AM UTC

daniel-thompson wrote: post #69

> 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 of these arguments. I mostly agree with you, but let's give credit where credit is due. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from TFA: > "[...] since 1992, [courts have said] the application-programming interfa…

Very interesting - can you link your source? I wasn't able to find that quote myself, and wanted to read more.

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

#508

Post by austincheney » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:11 AM 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 am a software engineer and it is certainly NOT open and shut for me. APIs are code definitions just as are interfaces, custom types, classes, and so forth.

I don’t think APIs should be treated differently than other code only because you need it to be so for your convenience. If APIs should be treated differently they need to be defined separately and licensed differently. Other languages and platforms makes this very clear by externalizing most APIs from the language and then adding support for the API to the language as though it is a foreign technology, because it’s definition and license are separate.

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

#509

Post by dodobirdlord » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:12 AM UTC

nodamage wrote: post #465

granzymes wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the court decides that the lower court was wrong to have disregarded the jury’s decision they’ll definitely decline to answer the question about API copyright. The court pretty much always gives the narrowest ruling possible.

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

#510

Post by rayiner » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 1:12 AM 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 difference is that Baker didn’t involve literal copying of the accounting tables. Baker is treated as a merger case, but it’s more a case about the difference between copyright and a method patent. Baker claimed that copying the general structure of the tables was infringement. The court essentially held that the structure that was copied was the structure dictated by the method itself. And Selden couldn’t copyright any table that had the same structure because that would give him a monopoly on the method.

Here, the Java APIs were copied literally. For example, say you’ve got a function to append an item to a list:

Append(item, list) Append(list, item)

If you changed the order of the parameters, you wouldn’t be literally copying, even though it’s the same basic signature. That’s the Baker case. You can’t monopolize the method of appending an item to a list by extending copyright to all possible permutations of the limited ways to write the signature.

But what happens if you do literally copy? That’s this case. Then, the question is whether these choices of where to put the parameter reflect any creativity.

I happen to think they do—I strongly prefer the first form, which is how it’s done in the Common Lisp standard library.