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

Oracle/Google jury finds Google infringed SSO but hangs on fair use

groklaw.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: Oracle/Google jury finds Google infringed SSO but hangs on fair use

#31

Post by ars »

__alexs wrote: post #30
ars wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the legal measure. If in fact they were both written identically, but independently there is no infringement. If it's totally obvious, but it was copied then there is infringement. The takeaway is write it yourself - don't copy it without permission, even if it's so obvious. (And if it's so obvious then there really is hardly a reason to even copy it in the first place.)

I thought the case was not even about copyright infringement of code but of the APIs i.e. the function names and arguments? The OpenJDK is GPL'd after all, and well, an argument could be made that Google are infringing by distributing GPLd rangeCheck with the Apache license, Oracle aren't doing that afaik.

There is more than one issue. The big one of the API's, and a smaller issue of a very small amount of outright copying already admitted to by google.

Re: Oracle/Google jury finds Google infringed SSO but hangs on fair use

#32

Post by fulafel »

thereallurch wrote: post #4
revelation wrote: post #2

There have been enough comments on what this means, whats going to happen next, etc. Something that is bothering me. Juries are meant to infuse some common reasoning into the law. And still, you get decisions like this: The rangeCheck method in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.Java YES, infringing....

From OpenJDK: private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) { if (fromIndex > toIndex) throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")"); if (fromIndex arrayLen) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex); } From Google: private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) { if (fromIndex > toIndex) throw new IllegalArgume…

How can this snippet be copyrightable? Is there no requirement/threshold of originality in the US?

Re: Oracle/Google jury finds Google infringed SSO but hangs on fair use

#33

Post by fulafel »

ars wrote: post #19
gouranga wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be blatantly honest, that is exactly what I'd write. The implementation is trivial and obvious therefore the probability of them being the same is high.

That's not the legal measure. If in fact they were both written identically, but independently there is no infringement. If it's totally obvious, but it was copied then there is infringement. The takeaway is write it yourself - don't copy it without permission, even if it's so obvious. (And if it's so obvious then there really is hardly a reason to even copy it in the first place.)

So you're saying that if I copy "for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)" then it's infringment, and there's no requirement of originality for copyright protection?

Re: Oracle/Google jury finds Google infringed SSO but hangs on fair use

#34

Post by dchest »

wtallis wrote: post #28
dchest wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be the case if copyright wasn't transferable. AFAIK, he wrote it while working for Google, thus the owner of his code was Google, which then transferred/donated the ownership to Sun. He testified that he copied the code which he didn't own anymore. This is all pretty fucked up, but that's what the law is.

I don't think that's right - elsewhere in this thread is a quote from his testimony where he says it wasn't done for Google, so it wasn't a work for hire. Rules are different for works of corporate authorship and personal authorship. Most significantly, in the case of personal authorship, the author is allowed to take back their copyright if at least 35 years have elapsed since the grant of copyright to another party…

Arrays, from where he took rangeCheck has a copyright notice stating that it was copyrighted by Sun, then Oracle:

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/annotate/37a05a11f2...

It also states that Josh Bloch is one of the authors. You maybe right that he may have done this as not a work for hire, or even that he may still own copyrights for this code (I don't know what the contributors agreement said at that time), but Google didn't even contest it in court.

Re: Oracle/Google jury finds Google infringed SSO but hangs on fair use

#35

Post by __alexs »

ars wrote: post #31
__alexs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the case was not even about copyright infringement of code but of the APIs i.e. the function names and arguments? The OpenJDK is GPL'd after all, and well, an argument could be made that Google are infringing by distributing GPLd rangeCheck with the Apache license, Oracle aren't doing that afaik.

There is more than one issue. The big one of the API's, and a smaller issue of a very small amount of outright copying already admitted to by google.

If the Java APIs are copyrightable, which part of the OpenJDK GPL release doesn't provide Google with a GPL copyright license to them then?

Re: Oracle/Google jury finds Google infringed SSO but hangs on fair use

#36

Post by cullen »

dminor wrote: post #8
gouranga wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be blatantly honest, that is exactly what I'd write. The implementation is trivial and obvious therefore the probability of them being the same is high.

They were both written by Joshua Bloch, while working at Google. The first was for TimSort, which he donated to Sun/OpenJDK. He then reused the rangeCheck code in Android.

Oracle is claiming infringement and damages for something they (Sun) didn't even pay for? That's a lot of gall.

Re: Oracle/Google jury finds Google infringed SSO but hangs on fair use

#37

Post by cullen »

fulafel wrote: post #33
ars wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the legal measure. If in fact they were both written identically, but independently there is no infringement. If it's totally obvious, but it was copied then there is infringement. The takeaway is write it yourself - don't copy it without permission, even if it's so obvious. (And if it's so obvious then there really is hardly a reason to even copy it in the first place.)

So you're saying that if I copy "for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)" then it's infringment, and there's no requirement of originality for copyright protection?

Oh dear, my freshmen are in a heap of trouble.
Post reply on HN