Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

561–570 of 771 posts

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

#561

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…

Seems like you've discovered the philosophy of Accelerationism!

Sometimes it does feel that embracing awful system is the best way to topple it.

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

#562
post #116

> 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…

It does go back to the compaq days when they clean room cloned the IBM PC.

This reminds me of the TV show Halt and Catch Fire, which kind of portrays something similar!

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

#563

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…

Is file format copyrightable? That's a cookbook how to extract data.

Is binary API copyrightable? That's a cookbook too.

Is API as build target copyrightable? I just want this code to run.

Is processor ISA copyrightable?

I have to put gas in tank, oil in engine, water in cooling system for car to run. I have to press clutch, turn a key for engine to start. Is this copyrightable?

Every thing is creative. There are many ways to make same thing. Sometimes we care not about creativity but compatibility. Qemu runs x86, ARM. Open Office opens Microsoft Word files. Google Cloud Storage is interoperable with Amazon S3 [1]. I can construct my own client.

And yet we have PNG, OGG, AV1, RISC-V — there are some issues with MP3 (patent), GIF (patent), H.264 (patent), x86 (patent), ARM.

[1] https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/interoperability

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

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

> externalizing most APIs from the language and then adding support for the API to the language as though it is a foreign technology That's true, but only in the case for the language's standard library. But what about the API of the language's top-level constructs? A class must have an initializer, for instance. Or protocol / interface has the notion of required as well as optional methods. Why is the latter (langua…

Yes, there must be some few primitive APIs within a given language. An example is base types and their most essential methods for internal constructs that aren’t meant to be exposed.

Unfortunately, Java is just such a perfect for this legal fight. It is proprietary and exists in this nebulous universe of wanting to make everything Java. It’s like Microsoft of the 90s.

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

#565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you clarify how you think Baker applies here? "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] [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/ My…

> My reading is that the mere use of an API is a method of practice. The problem is Google didn't merely use the API, it reproduced the API entirely and necessarily copied several thousand lines of code in the process. Code itself is generally copyrightable so it is difficult to argue that the specific type of code that makes up the Java API declaration is exempt from this.

Apologies, I didn't express myself well when writing that. I meant that all API code is embodied practice. Thus API code itself is in no way different from ledger templates at issue in Baker.

Reproduction of an API in its entirety is no different from reproduction of an embedded practice. Any arguments I've seen so far that argued for parts of API code not being embedded practice were not taking into account how API code is used by software engineers.

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

#566
post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I cannot reconcile this sort of argument with the Baker v. Selden precedent. Contemporary judges, including on the Supreme Court, aren't interested in reconciling Oracle's argument with Baker v. Selden; there's no love for Baker. Courts may pay lip service to the notion that ideas can't be copyrighted, but the prospect of ruling as a matter of law that specific, concrete categories of works are categorically not co…

Are there some cases you can cite where this movement occurred? They don't need to be software related. I'm VERY curious about this trend.

Off the top of my head:

* Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017)

* DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015)

* Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012)

One of the most important cases for contemporary copyright law was Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). It was a nominal a win for the defendant, but in fact the opinion set a very low bar and effectively condemned the types of bright-line subject matter exclusions that a robust merger doctrine demands, such as in Baker v. Selden.

IIRC, Alex Kozinski wrote some opinions that best reflect the majority perspective today, but I can't find any good citations right now. His arguments are persuasive, but sort of miss the point. Baker v. Selder and the merger doctrine are classic common law solutions to statutory rights that breed complex litigation and inhibit competition. They're not supposed to be intellectually pure or rigorous defenses of legislative powers. Quite the opposite. But courts are far more conservative today and not inclined to exercise their judicial powers this way, with the notable exception of the First Amendment. In fact, certain First Amendment defenses to infringement are slowly becoming more viable, where once upon a time they were dismissed out of hand.

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

#567
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does go back to the compaq days when they clean room cloned the IBM PC.

This reminds me of the TV show Halt and Catch Fire, which kind of portrays something similar!

That show is a dramatization of that period in compaqs history.

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

#568
post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there some cases you can cite where this movement occurred? They don't need to be software related. I'm VERY curious about this trend.

Off the top of my head: * Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) * DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) * Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012) One of the most important cases for contemporary copyright law was Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). It was a nominal a win for the defendant, but in fact the opinion set a very low bar and ef…

Very interesting... and somewhat unexpected especially re First Amendment, thank you for these!

Star Athletica LLC surprised me in particular. Stripes and chevrons!

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

#569

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…

There's nothing precluding the legal analysis you've outlined from stemming from a poor understanding of the underlying technology. Just because the legal reasoning is internally sound doesn't mean the resulting narrative makes any sense when applied to reality, and it hardly is the only possible internally sound judgement. There is plenty of room for arbitrary semantics (and I would argue actively harmful and ignorant semantics) to dominate the resulting judgement.

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

#570

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…

The cookbook analogy falls apart as soon as you question whether creativity is implied. Sure, there is some creativity in putting "cookies" and "bundt cake" together in the Dessert chapter. Is there really any creativity in putting "log" and "pi" in the Math package?

APIs aren't cookbooks, they are toolboxes, and Oracle is claiming to own the idea of putting your Flathead next to your Phillips

Post reply on HN