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

#751

Post by az226 » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:41 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #701

az226 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we have copyright protections to begin with is to reward and incentivize creation of new creative works with intellectual property protections. If you spent a large amount of resources in creating the library of Java code, why should only the implementation be protected? They've spent a lot of resources to come up with which methods to create, what to call them, how to describe them, how to organize them,…

There is more to IP rights than copyright. >why should only the implementation be protected? Because copyright only protects authorship. You are the owner of your own creative works but you are not the owner of other people's creative works. What Oracle wants is to prevent independent reimplementation of Java libraries which is clearly a case of patent law not copyright law. The Java standard library casts a "shadow"…

As I said, Google could have created new packages with the same functionality, but they didn’t. They copied Oracle’s Java libraries exactly. Even if you reimplement the implementing code, you’ve still copied a lot from the creative expression. One could argue that there’s more effort needed on part of designing the libraries than their underlying implementation, which would be much more straightforward.

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

#752

Post by az226 » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:44 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #557

az226 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't edit my comment above to add: The interoperability argument is also disingenuous because Google didn't copy all of Oracle's Java libraries. It only copied the ones it deemed necessary to provide sufficient coverage for the needs of the Android platform and that developers of Oracle's Java community were familiar with. As the justices pointed out, it's a one-way interoperability.

> If this wasn't protected, you would have zero incentive to build high quality libraries or to invest in making the platform popular if someone else can just come along and copy it. I guess I must be hallucinating all those S3-compatible libraries and services. > As the justices pointed out, it's a one-way interoperability. It makes a large majority of the same code work on both. That's not one-way. Porting in eithe…

Fair enough. The decision to allow someone else to copy the code should be up to the owner and not be given away.

Also copyright protections aren’t given up because it makes a third party’s life easier. That’s also what was said during the hearing.

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

#753

Post by az226 » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:50 AM UTC

tylerchr wrote: post #620

az226 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google would lose if they would continue hammering the interop point and the justices would dig deeper. Google only copied a selective set of Oracle's Java libraries. If they were about interop, they would have copied all of them. So no, Google didn't copy the libraries because of interoperability reasons. Google copied them so they would get access to the large developer community and ride the coattails of the succe…

> Google copied them so they would get access to the large developer community and ride the coattails of the successful investments into the Java platform that Oracle made. I like this framing and think it’s entirely correct, but I don’t agree that it necessarily dooms the interoperability argument. Google wasn’t trying to achieve compatibility with existing code (for which, you’re right, they’d have needed to take t…

I see your point. But because it would be interoperable with the developers and not the end users, so it’s still no dice for Google. The QWERTY keyboard is a good example of interoperability with end users (but not of copyright itself). So the courts would not give weight to that aspect.

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

#754

Post by az226 » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:52 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #702

luckylion wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, patents are a different thing, but they serve a similar purpose. "If you don't have to to the research and invest in creating the technology by copying, you can do it cheaper which the market will reward" is what both copyright and patents are created to change.

They don't serve a similar purpose. Copyright protects authorship. Patents protect against reinvention. It's clear that Oracle needs a patent unless Google outright stole the standard library.

News at 11, they did.

In seriousness, they didn’t copy the libraries just once, but at least 3 times over time as Oracle continued to make investments in changes and additions to the libraries.

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

#755

Post by az226 » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:56 AM UTC

cataphract wrote: post #697

az226 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also argued that there was only one way Oracle's Java libraries could have been designed, which is clearly false, and the justices picked up on that.

After a (long) while it became clear it meant "there is only way that we might make the full use of the current pool of Java programmers", which is an odd argument to advance — why would they be entitled to draw from that pool of programmers. I think it would have been more compelling if he had focused on the interoperability with the ecosystem of Java libraries.

And the justices picked up on that. I thought they did a good job assessing the case from both ends. At first I thought the justices were against Google and pro Oracle, until I saw them address the Oracle lawyer and it was clear they were asking good questions on both sides.

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

#756

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 2:14 AM UTC

az226 wrote: post #752

Dylan16807 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this wasn't protected, you would have zero incentive to build high quality libraries or to invest in making the platform popular if someone else can just come along and copy it. I guess I must be hallucinating all those S3-compatible libraries and services. > As the justices pointed out, it's a one-way interoperability. It makes a large majority of the same code work on both. That's not one-way. Porting in eithe…

Fair enough. The decision to allow someone else to copy the code should be up to the owner and not be given away. Also copyright protections aren’t given up because it makes a third party’s life easier. That’s also what was said during the hearing.

> Also copyright protections aren’t given up because it makes a third party’s life easier. That’s also what was said during the hearing.

Yeah but if your mandate is to promote the arts and sciences then you desperately want interoperability to be easy and encouraged.

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

#757

Post by andrewjl » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 6:07 AM UTC

nodamage wrote: post #692

andrewjl wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The ledger templates in Baker are the result of following the instructions from the book. Isn't the correct analogue to the API code the instruction book rather than the resulting ledger templates? Baker says that if you write a book that contains instructions on how to do something, you might own the copyright to that book, but your copyright doesn't extend to the results of other people following your instructions…

> Isn't the correct analogue to the API code the instruction book rather than the resulting ledger templates?

I would say it's the latter and not the former. APIs aren't instructions in and of themselves, they are instruction identifiers. And the instructions they identify correspond to interactions in a working system. If one wanted to recreate the working system, they'd be hard pressed to do so without recreating instruction identifiers. This isn't just an interoperability issue, but also because experienced practitioners have certain expectations re instructions semantics. Those semantics are often unexpressed directly and come from for example their organization into a given module.

> But here they're alleging something further: that the API (instruction book) itself has been copied.

This is where I'm really puzzled. The API is not the instruction book. The API is a method of interacting with an invented system. You cannot use the API in isolation from the system, by itself it's largely useless. You can't take the API, read it, and then be able to use the system. You need the API to use the system as well, by definition it cannot be used without an API. You could say that the instructions and the ledger templates are fused and inseparable here, but that's only in cases where no other documentation exists which is not the case for the majority of system on the level of Java.

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

#758

Post by salawat » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 6:40 AM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #543

nitrogen wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, 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. It's absolutely essential for interoperability to preserve package layout, class/method names, and argument o…

That is true, but it's irrelevant. Oracle is not suing app developers for writing Java code to run on an Apache Harmony based mobile OS. It is suing Google for proceeding to base their mobile OS on Apache Harmony after they backed out of licensing negotiations. As was observed during the hearing, everyone else who made a mobile OS was able to do it without copying someone else's API structure, so the idea that the AP…

Huh. I actually was about to suggest that the Java Hello World should work, but a quick perusal dismisses that.

Why would Google bother keeping the JVM class hierarchy if they were implementing a different VM to run against anyway? That just seems to be asking for trouble. I can sort of see some merit to Oracle's argument now. It would be one thing if JVM byte code was treated as an Intermediary representation that then compiled to Dalvik... but it isn't even really that.

Damn, Google stepped in it. Hard.

Edit: Further research indicates Java Byte code is an intermediate representation compiled to Dalvik; so technically the Java Hello World would work coming out in Dalvik (or Android Runtime). So... Back to being confused again, because clearly, even if Google did copy pasta the Java APIs the end machine they are driving is drastically different; I.e., System.out.println() would generate no visible output on Android.

So I'm really back in Google's camp, Oracle is trying to copyright a steering wheel.

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

#759

Post by dtech » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 2:36 PM UTC

matkoniecz wrote: post #683

dtech wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, GPL defines some boundaries but as long WSL acts as stand-alone software and Windows doesn't link against it that's allowed.

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

#760

Post by syshum » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 3:29 PM UTC

tylerchr wrote: post #632

syshum wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes because the entire history of software industry shows what the problems are with Vendor Lock-in and how it will be abused

Oracle is a case book study if it, that is their entire business model