Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#121

Post by throwaway8581 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:41 PM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #105

tantalor wrote: post #74

From the dissent: > The Copyright Act expressly protects computer code. It recognizes that a “computer program” is protected by copyright... And it defines “‘computer program’” as “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.” §101. That definition clearly covers declaring code—sets of statements that indirectly perform computer function…

This argument is hard to swallow: > declaring code would satisfy the general test for copyrightability.. they are expressed in “words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols It is common knowledge that mathematical formulae & equations, which are also expressed in words, numbers, and symbols, do not have copyright protection. > Copyright protection is therefore not available for... mathematical principles; for…

This is not a persuasive argument because, by your logic, function implementations are also mathematical formulas and everyone agrees that they are copyrightable.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#122

Post by coldpie » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:41 PM UTC

mrkstu wrote: post #13

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #2

Oh my God. What a relief.

Yep. This case was an existential threat to multitudes of industries and the assumptions they were built on. The weird thing is it would of hurt Oracle as much as anyone. I have no clue how anyone w/any technical merit didn't understand that this was a footgun of the largest possible magnitude for them.

I'd really like it if we could kill Oracle somehow. They are easily the worst player in the technology industry.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#123

Post by thaumasiotes » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:41 PM UTC

thedevelopnik wrote: post #72

_Microft wrote: post #29

Is this a final judgement? Is it over now?

Yes. There is no appellate court above the Supreme Court. The only way things could change now is if Congress/President passed a new law, and I don’t think API copyrights are near the top of the list.

> There is no appellate court above the Supreme Court.

That is true.

> The only way things could change now is if Congress/President passed a new law

That isn't true at all; the Supreme Court is free to change the law by itself. Someone could sue over the same question and get a different result overruling this one.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#124

Post by flowerlad » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

This has impact beyond APIs. The Supreme Court says copying User Interface is fair use.

Excerpts:

The nature of the work at issue favors fair use. The copied lines of code are part of a “user interface” that provides a way for programmers to access prewritten computer code through the use of simple commands. As a result, this code is different from many other types of code, such as the code that actually instructs the computer to execute a task. As part of an interface, the copied lines are inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas (the overall organization of the API) and the creation of new creative expression (the code independently written by Google). Unlike many other computer programs, the value of the copied lines is in significant part derived from the investment of users (here computer programmers) who have learned the API’s system. Given these differences, application of fair use here is unlikely to undermine the general copyright protection that Congress provided for computer programs.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#125

Post by throwaway8581 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #20

mrkstu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. This case was an existential threat to multitudes of industries and the assumptions they were built on. The weird thing is it would of hurt Oracle as much as anyone. I have no clue how anyone w/any technical merit didn't understand that this was a footgun of the largest possible magnitude for them.

In my own mind, when CentOS died Oracle was saying you should move to "Oracle Unbreakable Linux"... which is a downstream clone of RHEL, just like CentOS was. Just one example of the hypocrisy.

It is uncontested that Oracle cloning RHEL is allowed by the license that RHEL is released under. They don't need a fair use ruling from the Supreme Court because they literally have a license that allows exactly what they did. The same could not be said for Google's actions in this case.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#126

Post by AshamedCaptain » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

For better or worse, the same arguments ( "API is copyrightable" ) is what was used in the past to prevent 98's Microsoft from doing embrace-extend-extinguish to Java with their "JavaVM with P/Invoke'd Win32 API".

The idea in that case was that when you try to implement something identical to the Java language and standard library, it doesn't matter if you call it Java or "Visual J++"; you are still implementing Java and thus in order to be able to do that you need to agree to Sun's terms (in that time, it was that your implementation needed to pass a testsuite and among other things needed to be "write once run everywhere", something the MS one definitely didn't as it was offering lots of non-portable extensions).

Now to my understanding the opinion here is that literally Sun was trying to do the same to Google (forcing them to ensure their implementation was compatible with Sun's, including being able to run Android software under Sun's JVM), which would have quite put a setback to Android at least as it was at that point (could you imagine Android forced to go with Swing?).

If I try to be fair, I find that in fact Android did succesfully pull the embrace-extend-extinguish strategy that MS was prevented to by legal reasons, and as a consequence basically killed Java on the mobile space (though Oracle has a lot of blame to share here). Perhaps the tides turned and now Google is seen as the lesser evil when compared to Oracle, while in the past Sun was seen as the lesser evil compared to MS. But is there any objective reason why the two rulings should have gone differently?

I am actually completely undecided about how I would have liked this ruling to go. I can see some of the repercussions of being able to copyright "header files" way too dangerous to ignore, but on the other side I have already seen the consequences of not being able to, and they are also bad.

Alien vs predator...

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#127

Post by mycall » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

HumblyTossed wrote: post #47

mycall wrote: post #18

> Computer programs differ to some extent from many other copyrightable works because computer programs always serve a functional purpose. So a computer program instructs processors to do things while books do not necessarily instruct neurons to do things. This seems like a leap. I could write a book with NOP for every word or I could write a program with NOP loops. Are these really instruction to do things? Like so,…

Yes a NOP is an instruction to do something. It tells the cpu to not change state for a period of time equal to how long it takes to execute the NOP.

How about in a higher level language? C program that is all semicolons vs. a book of all semicolons? Neither computer nor human is any more knowledgeable after reading it.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#128

Post by CarelessExpert » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

jahnu wrote: post #16

qalmakka wrote: post #12

This is one of the most important legal decisions in the history of software. The US Supreme Court has basically just saved the whole software industry (and FOSS projects) from being wrecked by patent trolls.

At least in the US

US copyright law and interpretation tends to get exported through trade deals and other forms of political and economic pressure.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#129

Post by bzbarsky » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

curryst wrote: post #51

politelemon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unfamiliar with the legal system (judicial system?). I had thought that the jury's findings were final. Am I understanding correctly that the case still went to the Supreme Court of the US, and now that court finds in favor of Google. What happens after this, more appeals or is this like a proper static const readonly final?

You understand correctly. The jury's decision isn't final (and I thought this was ruled on by a judge directly, instead of a jury, but I could be wrong). You can appeal pretty much any case to a higher court. I don't know the order, but it's not uncommon for cases to appeal to a higher court several times. I.e. a verdict is rendered in a county court; you don't like it, so you appeal to the state court. State court s…

This does not match my understanding of the situation (though note: I am not a lawyer; take everything that follows with a grain of salt).

My understanding is that a jury's primary task of deciding on the facts is final. The facts in a case like this seem to me to be things like deciding whether Oracle in fact holds the copyright, and whether Google's copy of the API is sufficiently similar for that copyright to apply to Google's copy.

Now as far as appeals go, you can appeal whether the trial was done properly, such that the jury was able to do its fact-finding job correctly. You can appeal what was then decided based on those facts (e.g. sentencing). You can appeal meta-questions, like whether a particular decision is a "finding of fact" or not to start with.

The question of whether "fair use" is the sort of thing that is decided by judge or jury is apparently somewhat contentious in this case; I just found https://www.law.uw.edu/wlr/print-edition/print-edition/vol-9... describing some of the issues there. Today's decision refers to this as well: it's (c) under "Held":

> (c) The fair use question is a mixed question of fact and law. Re- viewing courts should appropriately defer to the jury’s findings of un- derlying facts, but the ultimate question whether those facts amount to a fair use is a legal question for judges to decide de novo. This ap- proach does not violate the Seventh Amendment’s prohibition on courts reexamining facts tried by a jury, because the ultimate question here is one of law, not fact. The “right of trial by jury” does not include the right to have a jury resolve a fair use defense. Pp. 18–21.

which sure sounds like the Supreme Court effectively decided that the final determination of whether a use is "fair use" or not should be made by a judge, not a jury. Then they proceed to make that determination in this case in holding (d).

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#130

Post by pdoconnell » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

jxf wrote: post #70

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use: > To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on…

In general the court seems to try to go to the easiest decision point in a case. The copyrightability of an API is less relevant if the user being sued should win regardless because of fair use. This is better than a plurality decision where there's multiple reasonings on API copywrite that make future decisions difficult. Here at least the court gives guidance on how to think about evaluating fair use in this context, which lower courts can apply.