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

641–650 of 965 posts

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

#641

Post by monocasa »

gpm wrote: post #538
shadowgovt wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see; the difference is SCOTUS vs. circuit court of appeals precedent. I was referring to the decision of May 9, 2014 that overrulled the Alsup court assertion that APIs are not subject to copyright. But that decision was not from SCOTUS but from the appeals court for the circuit. Current status, if I understand correctly, is that SCOTUS has not weighed in on whether APIs may be subject to copyright, and precedent i…

I don't think federal circuit rulings on non patent matter are binding precedent anywhere? I could be wrong about that. I certainly doubt there binding precedent on just one federal district (and not either all the district courts in the relevant circuit, or all district courts period).

Yeah, the CAFC rulings aren't precedent in the circuit courts were this would normally be appealed.

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

#642

Post by amalcon »

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.

That point is super weird, because the court has a tendency to make the narrowest ruling that is able to resolve the case in front of them. Clearly the fair use question is more narrow than the question of copyrightability of APIs.

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

#644

Post by azernik »

btilly wrote: post #611
GavinMcG wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it have been evaluated first? I understand the intuition you're getting at: logically, the first question could make the second irrelevant. But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question?

But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question? The main influence of the Supreme Court is in setting precedent. In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs…

> In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable.

This is not true - other circuit courts are free to set their own, conflicting precedent. Each circuit's decisions are binding only on its own judges, and suggestive but not binding on other circuits.

Circuits deciding differently (a "circuit split") is uncommon, and considered urgent grounds for the Supreme Court to take up a test case to resolve the ambiguity; but it's not considered a "breaking" of precedent by either circuit, just a difference of interpretation for the Supreme Court to resolve

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

#645

Post by bonzini »

guscost wrote: post #597
chasil wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had Justice Thomas' opinion prevailed, most everything within POSIX was originally copyright by AT&T USL as part of System V, and would be owned by the current holders of that intellectual property. Anyone using fork(), stat(), open(), or other basic parts of the UNIX development environment would be in violation. Those copyrights were purchased by Novell at some point, and I believe ended up with Attachmate. One wou…

> That is truly a nightmare scenario. Absolutely, but courts are supposed to interpret the law, not rule whichever way avoids nightmare scenarios. The risk of going too far in that direction (and this is by no means the first case in which SCOTUS c̶l̶e̶a̶r̶l̶y̶ may have rationalized a decision for pragmatic reasons) is that it makes the court more corruptible. I am glad the majority ruled this way, because I agree th…

> courts are supposed to interpret the law

The law also states that copyright's purpose is to stimulate progress of the arts, and that's why fair use is possible. Interpreting the law also means establishing the limits of fair use.

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

#646

Post by schneidmaster »

abhv wrote: post #21

Which of Breyer's clerks drafted this? They clearly understand many tech issues and I hope they find their place on some Federal circuit to herald an era of logic in tech law. "Google’s limited copying of the API is a transformative use. Google copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different computing environment without discarding a portion of a familiar programming language. Google’s purpose…

Breyer has actually been writing on these issues for quite some time; see for example his article "The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs" [0] -- published in the Harvard Law Review in 1970. His overall body of work demonstrates a pretty good understanding of the underlying technical issues, and he has been a reliable ally on the bench in this area.

[0]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1339714?seq=1

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

#647

Post by btilly »

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…

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming.

It is even less decisive than you're saying.

The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are. And for fair use, one of the statutory factors is the "effect" of the copying on the "market for or value of the copyrighted work."

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:

The fact that one statutory factor points one way doesn't stop another from pointing the other. And part of their decision is the conclusion that Google's copying increased the value of Java. That will generally not be true when APIs get copied.

In particular if I am trying to create a product that competes with yours, and I copy your API for the purpose of interoperability, I'm going to have an uphill battle claiming fair use. Because my product directly reduces the market for your product.

To name some historically important examples, Microsoft copied the APIs for JavaScript from Netscape, Microsoft copied APIs from Lotus 1-2-3 for Excel, and Wine copied APIs from Windows for Linux. The outcomes famously were that Netscape went out of business, Lotus 1-2-3 was discontinued, and Linux became somewhat more viable.

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

#648

Post by azernik »

Gh0stRAT wrote: post #406
ghaff wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but I can imagine something like the following: A. We decide this is fair use based on the small number of LOC used and call it a day B. OR we can decide that APIs are not copyrightable even though they're self-evidently creative works because of the importance of interoperability based on something something related to Borland v. Lotus, a case that we couldn't agree on the last time it came up. Hey folks. Let…

While I agree that APIs should not be copyrightable, the Supreme Court has been criticized for "legislating from the bench". Avoiding the temptation to set bigger and more far-reaching precedents than is strictly necessary for the case at hand avoids giving the impression that the judicial branch is doing the job of the legislative branch.

That is part of the dynamic. More importantly, though, a narrow decision makes a broad decision easier. If some justices think the code isn't copyrightable, they can increase their voting power by agreeing to set a less sweeping precedent that more justices agree with.

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

#649

Post by monocasa »

sn_master wrote: post #599
burnte wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read Thomas' dissent, it'sabsolutely insane. He says how those 11k lines are basically 97.5% of Java's entire usefulness, and billions of dollars of value to Oracle from an Amazon deal. Absurdity.

What Amazon deal? Did Amazon pay Oracle to license the Java API?

Yeah for the original Kindle. It's brought up in the court's decision.

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

#650

Post by ocdtrekkie »

esarbe wrote: post #557
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a statutory standpoint, there is no difference between the API and the code in general, which the dissenting opinion highlights. So if fair use is granted for theft of copylefted code in a non-copyleft manner, it doesn't matter heavily whether that was "declaring code" or "implementing code". This ruling doesn't change that APIs are copyrightable code.

The dissenting opinion is stupid. Thomas may be a bad justice, but he has even less of a clue about software devolopment. Of course there is a difference between an API and the code in general. This decision sidestepped the question of whether APIs are copyrightable or not by declaring that this particular instance was fair use. Reimplementing interfaces has always been fair-use, they are definitions. Re-Implementati…

> This decision sidestepped the question of whether APIs are copyrightable or not by declaring that this particular instance was fair use.

This is incorrect, before fair use was tested, copyrightability was established, which is why the fair use defense, which is an exemption for copyright violation, was then determined. If you followed the various appeals and rulings this case entailed, you'd have to be aware of this.

APIs are copyrightable, as this case has determined, but now the Supreme Court has also thrown out any reasonable definition of what is and isn't fair use.

Post reply on HN