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

591–600 of 771 posts

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

#591

Post by gerash »

ColanR wrote: post #506
gerash wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Having too many equally dominant options for computing platforms might sound good at first but in practice it means effectively no software is portable and the whole industry becomes inefficient as a whole with people doing redundant work most of the time.

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

#592

Post by mastrsushi »

It seems the ideas of interfaces became lost in translation to the judges. The comparison to a football playbook showed that. A playbook would have more in common with a concrete implementation than this idea of standard specifications as "trade secrets". As long as they don't extend the language to break compatibility as Microsoft J++ did, I don't see anything wrong.

At the same time there needs to be dissolution within FAANG. Hopefully this loss will help that instead of putting strain on the developer community.

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

#593

Post by nobody9999 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #560
pdonis wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An API, despite looking like works, is not a literary expression of a process, it is a machine If this argument is valid, it means that APIs are not copyrightable, they are patentable, because copyright is only for expressions of ideas, not for machines; patents are what apply to machines. And Oracle has already lost on the question of patent infringement in this case (back in 2015, IIRC).

As a machine, it would be patentable if the machine was made of something other than abstract concepts.

>As a machine, it would be patentable if the machine was made of something other than abstract concepts.

Processes, whether they're made up of abstract concepts or not are patentable[0]:

"Processes are patentable under the U.S. Patent Act if they meet certain criteria. A process patent is a form of utility patent that covers methods of changing the functionality or characteristics of a material during a particular use. The patent-holder is granted exclusive protections and rights to that process for 20 years.

When one patents a business method or, in some cases, a computer program, this is a form of patenting a process. It's now possible to patent subscription-based services, targeted advertising networks, online auction sites, portal sites, email systems, and even discussion forums.

As our society has evolved, intellectual property (IP) issues have evolved along with it. What constitutes IP these days is so much more than the newest machine or physical invention. Today we have genetically modified seeds, new strands of DNA, computer software, chemical formulae, and more. As these issues become more complex, patent law has to evolve to address new concerns. For example, one can now patent business models and software through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)."

[0] https://www.upcounsel.com/can-you-patent-a-process

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

#594

Post by rayiner »

wahern wrote: post #548
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 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…

I really struggle to see what was "brilliant" about Judge Alsup's opinion. After 30 pages of very careful analysis of the case law, his actual holding (at p. 35) simply begs the question. He states:

> Much of Oracle’s evidence at trial went to show that the design of methods in an API was a creative endeavor. Of course, that is true. Inventing a new method to deliver a new output can be creative, even inventive, including the choices of inputs needed and outputs returned. The same is true for classes. But such inventions — at the concept and functionality level — are protectable only under the Patent Act.

This mixes up the functional aspects of designing methods with the stylistic aspects of API design. Consider something like a 3D Graphics API. Some decisions are functional--for example, minimize call overhead or maximizing batching opportunities. That should not be copyrightable. But a lot of other decisions are stylistic. They make the API more elegant, or orthogonal, or intuitive, but are not functional in and of themselves. For example, how to structure groups of functions for dealing with various kinds of buffers. Insofar as those stylistic decisions are expressed in literal code, that's the domain of copyright.

> The method specification is the idea. The method implementation is the expression. No one may monopolize the idea.

This is ipse dixit. How you view the "idea" depends on your generality. Direct3D and OpenGL have different ways of expressing the concept of creating a Z-Buffer. "Creating a Z-Buffer" is the "idea." There are myriad method specifications that can express that idea.

> To carry out any given function, the method specification as set forth in the declaration must be identical under the Java rules (save only for the choices of argument names). Any other declaration would carry out some other function.

This is glossing over a major logical leap. It assumes you already have a method with a given signature, and writing the declaration is a mechanical process of specifying what signature corresponds to the method implementation. But what if you design the API by writing the declarations first, and filling in the methods afterwards? (Which is very often how its done!) You can write a method to do a particular thing but give it many different specific signatures.

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

#595

Post by elisbce »

People are confused about the differences between creativity and copyrights. Is API design work creative? Absolutely yes. Is all creative work copyrightable? Not necessarily. Copyrights have to be limited to very specific categories of use in order to make sure the interests are balanced between copyright holders and the general public. Compatibility at the interface level or format level is one such example. Same thing nobody should be able to copyright that a car has 4 wheels and 2-4 doors. Same thing nobody should be able to claim copyrights for poems with 14 lines.

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

#596

Post by pabs3 »

AstralStorm wrote: post #58
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether usage is commercial or not is a big part of the first factor in the fair use test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_charac... You could arguably implement Java without a license from Oracle provided you were using the GPL, as OpenJDK is released under the JDK, and presumably includes the entire Java API. The problem for Google, of course, is OEMs would've balked at being forced to open so…

OpenJDK is not released under GPL, but a much more permissive license.

The OpenJDK license is GPLv2, with the ClassPath Exception:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK

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

#597

Post by nobody9999 »

billfruit wrote: post #542
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…

Are anthologies of poems copy writable? I thought not.

>Are anthologies of poems copy writable? I thought not.

Then you thought wrong[0]. While the poems themselves may be copyrighted by others, the editor (presumably getting license/permission from copyright holders of said poems) organizes the poems in the anthology. The resulting work is copyrightable in its own right.

Check out the link below and the copyrights on each anthology.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/03/top-10-poetry-...

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

#598

Post by dodobirdlord »

sjg007 wrote: post #27
mathraki wrote: post #9

Where are the expert witnesses in this case?? Do we really expect judges in their 60s and 70s to understand basics of coding in order to come to the right conclusion?? I put myself in their shoes, if I had never looked at a line of code I couldn't even start to imagine what an API vs real code is. I'd probably think it's some made up concept that Google is using to save money and circumvent the law.

To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.

Nobody is saying that the overall design of a system isn’t subject to intellectual property law. But it’s an area of patents rather than copyright. Amazon until recently held a patent (it just expired) on the concept of having a button on a webpage that you click to buy something. IBM at one point held a patent on the concept of sending data from one computer to another computer. One of Google’s arguments in the case is that Oracle is trying to argue a copyright claim on something that is actually covered by patent law (and which was already found in lower court not to be a patent infringement). If you invented a fancy new way to couple together electrical wiring, or train cars, or drivetrain to a motor, then you would file a patent for it. My take is that Oracle is banking on the fact that an API is written in words (especially in Java...) to muddy the waters enough to obscure the technical and thus not copyrightable nature of an API.

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

#599

Post by nobody9999 »

hugi wrote: post #228
xoxoy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google lawyer should be fired. I can’t believe you’d put the best of the best in front of the SC and the guy didn’t even sound like he could describe what an API actually is in non-technical terms. I don’t see how he represented the best legal representation Google could buy.

Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest.

>Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest.

That might well be true. However, I'd be more inclined to apply Hanlon's Razor[0] to this, as it's usually closer to the truth.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

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

#600

Post by andi999 »

andrewjl wrote: post #458
interpol_p wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So about general computer programs does your argument mean, that the UML diagramm should be copyrightable but not the program, since it isna mechanical translation?
Post reply on HN