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

681–690 of 771 posts

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

#681

Post by imtringued »

rini17 wrote: post #660
diffeomorphism wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you very much can copy Chapter 1: Introducing the main character .. Chapter 6: Introducing side character Chapter 7: Arrival at the main story place .. Chapter 17: The final chapter In fact there are whole classifications of literature that identify basic storylines, tropes, structure etc. . The reason you couldn't copy the harry potter chapter titles exactly is because they contain specific titles, e.g. "the…

Sure, if google renamed all the classes/methods, it would make a lot of difference.

I wonder how much you can game this.

Rename java.lang.String to google.java.lang.String and make google's dex compiler automatically look in the google namespace by default.

Not allowed? How about we just hash the Java API names and then let the compiler automatically apply a mapping from hash to google name.

In the worst case Google is probably still allowed to ship a tool that renames uses of the java api directly in the source code and switches it over to whatever Google's naming scheme is. If this wasn't allowed it would be equivalent to making it illegal to not use the Java api because doing the same chance by hand would is not meaningfully different.

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

#682

Post by sergeykish »

tylerchr wrote: post #673
sergeykish wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No. I thought copyrights protect literary and visual illustrations, but not any underlying processes, mechanisms, or artifacts they describe (patents protect those). My understanding of copyright law is surely flawed, and perhaps the “original work” standard means that only descriptions of systems are copyrightable and not the systems themselves. In that case I agree that my examples fail. Keys and clutches are mecha…

I've specifically mentioned GIF, MP3 protected by patents. MP3 patents encoding-decoding.

> GIF images are compressed using the Lempel–Ziv–Welch (LZW) lossless data compression technique to reduce the file size without degrading the visual quality. This compression technique was patented in 1985. [1]

x86 protected by patents:

> Partly. For some advanced features, x86 may require license from Intel; x86-64 may require an additional license from AMD. The 80486 processor has been on the market for more than 20 years and so cannot be subject to patent claims. The pre-586 subset of the x86 architecture is therefore fully open. [2]

One can build/emulate 80486 but not x86-64, SSE, AVX, VT-x etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

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

#683

Post by matkoniecz »

dtech wrote: post #261
DoctorOW wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Linux is FOSS so Microsoft has a license to do it.

Only under Linux's GPL license, WSL is most definitively not under GPL

Is it possible to make WSL a GPL software without making entire Windows a GPL software?

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

#684

Post by imtringued »

phire wrote: post #580
nitrogen wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then, the question is whether these choices of where to put the parameter reflect any creativity. Though the choices are creative, it's necessary to replicate them exactly to produce a functioning interface for existing Java code. It's like a design for an electrical connector; maybe patentable, but it's essential to the function so shouldn't be copyrightable.

Are google deliberately not arguing the "APIs should be patentable but not copyrightable" angle because they think that would make the situation even worse than it already is?

Patents are opt in while copyright is opt out. If APIs are copyrightable Google will never get access to the Java API, ever. If someone gets a patent then it will expire eventually. Of course Google wants to go back to the status quo: APIs not being protected by IP rights.

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

#685

Post by interpol_p »

andrewjl wrote: post #622
interpol_p wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your point about the difference between the API code (where the names are mangled and meaningless) and the API design. Surely the API code is irrelevant here because it is not the part that humans interact with? In this case the naming is an important factor, as that is the competitive advantage leveraged by Google in copying Oracle's Java API. They were able to tap into a developer resource…

> difference between the API code (where the names are mangled and meaningless) and the API design. API Code = header file or interface files or source code artifacts you need to include in order to make use of the system underlying the API. API design = a behavioral specification which the system represented by the API implements > In this case the naming is an important factor, as that is the competitive advantage…

Thank you for the details! I think I understand what you mean now

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

#686

Post by imtringued »

austincheney wrote: post #508
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 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…

>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.

What? No. Most modern languages do the opposite. Usually everything is defined directly in the standard library and syntax is often merely sugar to call specific functions in that standard library or to refer to specific definitions in that standard library. Primitive numeric types like int, short, long are no longer hard coded directly into the compiler. Instead they are defined in the standard library and the compiler is just employing optimizations where possible to make them behave like primitive types.

Although Ceylon is dead I like to use it as an example. Almost everything was defined in the standard library. Even keywords in java like public, abstract, static are merely just annotations in Ceylon that were defined in the standard library.

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

#688

Post by andrewjl »

mongol wrote: post #612
andrewjl wrote: post #458

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 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…

I don't buy your translation argument. We have similar transations going on in the case of music for example.

It's not (just) my argument, it's a century old concept in copyright law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction#Me...

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

#689

Post by phkahler »

bismuthsalt wrote: post #345
R0b0t1 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another interesting take: Machine architectures expose an API, and it may become impossible for anyone but a chip manufacturer to distribute a compiler.

ARM has built a business around selling licenses for an instruction set, with multiple third parties implementing said instruction set in silicon.

ARM uses patents to prevent other implementations, not copyright law.

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

#690

Post by andrewjl »

andi999 wrote: post #600
andrewjl wrote: post #458

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 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?

No.

Unlike patents, which may confer proprietary rights in relation to general ideas and concepts per se when construed as methods, copyrights cannot confer such rights. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction

Post reply on HN