Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 965 posts

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

#601

Post by lostcolony »

kyrra wrote: post #81
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…

Thomas's dissent explicitly points this out. Without diving into "are APIs copyrightable?", the majority are skipping what should have been evaluated first before saying if they were fair-use or not.

Yeah, but Thomas said "The majority can not square it's fundamentally flawed fair-use analysis with a finding that declaring code is copyrightable".

Which is obviously false. A fair use analysis can -only- take place if the assumption is the code is copyrightable; if the majority had first decided the code was not copyrightable, fair use is immaterial.

Thomas' argument, if followed, would either have led to this same decision, or would make the opposite point he was trying to make.

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

#602

Post by sn_master »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #268
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #126

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…

Microsoft extended the JDK with VisualJ++, by introducing their COM based version of JNI. They claimed that the result was the same thing; now Google reimplemented the JDK while keeping the same API. that makes a subtle difference. I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft were to have sold VisualJ++ as 'Microsoft JDK'.

The problem was, code written for J++ wouldn't run on "regular" Java outside of Windows, effectively killing the cross-platform aspect of Java and turning it into another Visual Basic.

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

#603

Post by hannasanarion »

chris_wot wrote: post #486
mayank wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This judgment could have had devastating consequences and turned software development into a copyright nightmare. It’d sure have made the practice of taking someone else’s API and re-implementing the innards a lot more interesting: https://docs.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3co...

The WINE and ReactOS guys must be cheering!

It's a win for all open software. Torvalds and Stallman didn't ask Bell's permission before re-implementing Unix

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

#604

Post by extropy »

jhanschoo wrote: post #374
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…

> That said, this case does establish a precedent that if your copying of an API is primarily for purposes of matching an interface so that developers can reimplement it, you're in fair use territory: >> Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment. It's even weaker than you think. It was im…

How is J2ME not competing?

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

#605

Post by tzs »

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…

Thomas may have phrased it badly, but his underlying point that declaring code in a program satisfies the 17 USC 101 definition of "computer program" seems sound.

Declaring code in statement based languages is (1) a set of statements, is (2) used directly or indirectly in a computer, and it is used (3) to bring about a certain result. That hits all the points listed in 17 USC 101.

This is trivial to prove. Take a program that works and remove the declaring code. The program no longer works. That shows that the declaring code is indeed being used by the computer, and it is being used to bring about a certain result.

That the declaring code is not directly used in actually calling the API is irrelevant. The "certain result" the declaring code is used to bring about is the compiler producing output that works with the API.

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

#606

Post by maxlybbert »

jayd16 wrote: post #348
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dissent clearly highlights the fallacy of the ruling, where it discussed the importance of the "heart" of the work, rather than the portion of exact lines copied. Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter.

>Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter. Would that be a copyright infringement? Probably just trademark infringement at that point?

I know of one legal blogger who complains that certain copyright lawsuits really ought to be trademark suits (e.g., https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2007/11/accio-lawsuit.h... , https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tan... , https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-end... , https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/05/fan-fiction-tan... ). But the courts generally play along and accept “copyright” suits that seem to be judged on trademark principles (but punished according to copyright law).

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

#607

Post by [deleted] »

bobmalone123 wrote: post #201
throwaway3699 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still silly. Imagine if you needed to purchase a license for the shape of plug that fits inside a standard plug socket - to build any appliance.

Imagine if you had to pay a software developer 300K a year to design that API that you think it’s cool to steal.

[deleted]

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

#608

Post by throwaway3699 »

bobmalone123 wrote: post #201
throwaway3699 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still silly. Imagine if you needed to purchase a license for the shape of plug that fits inside a standard plug socket - to build any appliance.

Imagine if you had to pay a software developer 300K a year to design that API that you think it’s cool to steal.

Someone had to design plug sockets too.

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

#609

Post by coldpie »

victor106 wrote: post #106

I love how the Us supreme court judgements are written using low level terminology that most anyone can understand with little prior knowledge. Some countries use legal and complicated jargon that its hard to follow.

We're getting pretty far off topic, but I love this article: https://loweringthebar.net/2017/02/octopoid-embrace.html

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

#610

Post by winwhiz »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #259
danans wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that you aren't surprised?

Because they tend to take extreme or simplistic positions in opposition to any sort of nuanced or interpretive view of the law. In this case it's "Hey, it's Oracle's code, end of story."

Is intellectual surprise caused by anything other than bias?

I noticed this when I started rereading the dissent with a s/Oracle/Sun Microsystems/g. I felt a bit more swayed when I started to recollect all my fond Sun memories: blogs, hobbyist customer experience, etc. and stopped thinking about my glowing hatred of Oracle.

The dissent does seem nuanced to me even though I am quick to dismiss it based on the premise and my superior technical knowledge and maybe a bit of my own biases that I can't quite completely ignore.

Post reply on HN