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

631–640 of 771 posts

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

#631

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

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…

> What's worse for Google is that code has always been considered copyrightable so arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code.

Not exactly; an API can be completely re-implemented from scratch and still be compatible. If it was just about the API code, there wouldn't even be a case.

The idea that an API could legally be an "original work of authorship" makes a lot of sense; but the technical implications could indeed harm the industry overall.

Essentially what this means is: I build a system, you're not allowed to build a compatible system. Yet another reason why open source is the only way forward.

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

#632

Post by tylerchr »

syshum wrote: post #433
nojito wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This entire topic was discussed during the oral arguments. Google can not prove these adverse effects that they continue to claim will happen. They have had 6 years to do so and yet they can not state a single instance.

Because all of the copyright Trolls are waiting for the court to rule API's are copyrightable. Although it would be HILARIOUS if Amazon Sues Oracle on day one after the ruling for their copying of the S3 API. That said there are ALL KINDS of interop code that is at risk with the ruling, only people with their heads in the sand and do not understand the industry at all believe that nothing negative will come about if…

> That said there are ALL KINDS of interop code that is at risk with the ruling

Yes, there are parties that stand to lose a lot in the short term from a decision for Oracle.

But would it be so bad in the long term if proprietary vendor-specific protocols were put at a disadvantage? Maybe back-to-basics open protocols (or at least protocols formally contributed to the public domain) would resurge, and interoperability would actually _increase._

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

#633

Post by thayne »

mumblemumble wrote: post #524
andrewjl wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll have to read on this further. Thanks for the references. > The Baker precedent says that the parts of a design that are strictly essential to its function are not copyrightable. Since all parts of the API code are strictly essential to its function than they are not copyrightable, right? The parts that are not essential to its function lie in the behavior of the system in question instead of the API code, this b…

So, going back to the max() function example: I believe, based on the way the courts are looking at it, that the parts that are essential to its function are the fact that it takes two numbers and returns the greater of the two, and perhaps also the fact that it is named "max". Its being placed into class named java.lang.Math, though, is not. That is a product of the way it is arranged, which is a matter of design, n…

> ts being placed into class named java.lang.Math, though, is not. That is a product of the way it is arranged, which is a matter of design, not of necessity. It's hard to imagine any particular reason why a function would need to have "java" in its name in order correctly calculate the maximum of two numbers.

But if you want to be interoperable with programs that expect to be able to find the max of two numbers using the specific name "java.lang.Math.max", then the name _is_ part of the function. It's kind of like an electircal outlet. The shape of the outlet doesn't really matter as far as delivering electricity, but if you want people to be able to plug in their existing devices, it needs to be in a shape that is compatible with those devices.

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

#635

Post by inglor_cz »

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…

I make money on copyright and I would still be for - at least - significant shortening of the terms.

10 years from creation = automatic and free. More than that for an exponentially rising yearly fee. 11th year 100 dollars, 12th year 200 dollars, 13th year 400 dollars etc.

There would be another advantage, a searchable database of copyrighted items older than 10 years.

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

#636

Post by fluffy87 »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #624
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…

> the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. But what is discussed here is not the cookbook but just the table of contents. The actual recipes are different. Making another cookbook with chapter 1: salads, chapter 2: soups etc. is common practice. The question is how much detail you are allowed to copy in order to allow for interoperability. For instance, a dinner might call for the Oracle potato salad of Section 1.3…

Not really. A lot of people consider good APIs a work of art, independently of the implementation.

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

#637

Post by m12k »

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.

As an IP-minimalist, I'm surprised anyone can look at the mental gymnastics that people go through in order to draw some arbitrary line between acceptable and unacceptable copying, and come to any other conclusion than "this whole system is ludicrous".

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

#638

Post by sergeykish »

tylerchr wrote: post #628
sergeykish wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 man…

> Is {X} copyrightable? Evidently yes, to the extent that {X} includes subjective properties that go beyond the fundamental function of {X}. To use file formats as an example, the fundamental function of an archive file format is to bundle a set of otherwise-independent files together. A basic archive file format that simply concatenates file contents together (and I guess the necessary header to identify the boundar…

Are you sure you've described copyright and not patent?

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

#639

Post by m463 »

xoxoy wrote: post #211
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…

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.

How do you know the Google lawyer isn't representing the wishes of his client? A little voice in the back of my head wonders if maybe google's position has changed over the years...

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

#640

Post by m463 »

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…

Yes, the GPL actually depends on strong copyright.

who knows, maybe strong APIs will prevent embrace/extend/extinguish?

Post reply on HN