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

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 771 posts

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

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

garaetjjte wrote: post #29
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

APIs being copyrightable doesn't actually harm implementations of APIs that fall under fair use. (Fair use exemptions specifically apply to copyrighted things.) Interoperability is fair use. And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Things like WINE or NES emulators or the like would fall very comfortably into…

>And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Why it should? It would mean that implementing commercial Java runtime without Oracle license is not possible?

> > And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair.

> Why it should?

Because its explicitly a factor, in the statute, for fair use analysis.

> It would mean that implementing commercial Java runtime without Oracle license is not possible?

Maybe, maybe not. If Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, the entire case law on API fair use will be one negative instance. We might also get a more specific test articulated in the ruling, but we have no idea what that test would be now, so its hard to speculate (well, easy to speculate, but hard to judge which speculation is more accurate) what the impact would be on any other use.

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

#102

Post by bismuthsalt »

ohmygeek wrote: post #77
bismuthsalt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you copyright Harry Potter the character? Or can anyone use recognizable Harry Potter reproductions in commercial context, be it alternative books, movies or merchandise?

This is where the confusion lies: Google claims Oracle is copyrighting an interface to Harry Potter (as per your example) -- i.e., they are claiming copyright to any / all characters that are (1) a boy in his early teens (2) has magical powers (3) goes to wizard school. Now, the question is, where do we draw the line: As per Oracle, there cannot be any other character that does what Harry Potter does.

That's a stretch. Oracle is claiming copyright on a specific API with a specific name, specific organization and specific individual components / attributes. It is not claiming copyright on all standard lib APIs. In fact, there is no evidence that Oracle has any intention whatsoever to sue Google over Go or Dart.

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

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #50
garaetjjte wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Why it should? It would mean that implementing commercial Java runtime without Oracle license is not possible?

Whether usage is commercial or not is a big part of the first factor in the fair use test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_charac... You could arguably implement Java without a license from Oracle provided you were using the GPL, as OpenJDK is released under the JDK, and presumably includes the entire Java API. The problem for Google, of course, is OEMs would've balked at being forced to open so…

> You could arguably implement Java without a license from Oracle provided you were using the GPL

So, as long as you are using it under the license Oracle offers it to you under, you could use it without a license from Oracle?

I think that is inherently self-contradictory.

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

#105

Post by rdsnsca »

yencabulator wrote: post #28
flowerlad wrote: post #3

This isn't just a disaster for Google. This is a disaster for competition in the tech industry and a disaster for consumers. If APIs can be copyrighted, what's next? File formats? On-the-wire protocols?

Why not screw heads and threads, too? Apple wouldn't have to just use hard-to-find screwdrivers, they could just make a new screw shape, copyright the design, and then it'll be even harder to open their gadgets.

Actually screw heads are copyrighted, see :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives#Robertson

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

#106

Post by f154hfds »

I started reading this article today thinking that the case was clear-cut - Oracle's wrong and Google is right. As I read the article and the comments I'm now not at all sure. We all are trying to come up with a good analogy to explain why APIs are distinct from implementations, why it's 'obvious' to a programmer how they're distinct, and how their rules should be distinct.

But the more I think about it, and read feeble attempts to relate software to other industries, I am starting to think I was wrong. In my experience, especially where good design is encouraged and respected, I can spend far more time designing the API than implementing it! If I create a proprietary API shouldn't it be protected? Or am I misunderstanding the nature of the debate?

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

#107

Post by sjg007 »

tjchear wrote: post #59
sjg007 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.

I disagree that the IRL analogy of API is architectural diagrams. A better analogy for API would be an agreement on how to communicate what needs to be done (and what has been done) between two persons. The aggregate effect of that over thousands of people is a working system, coordinated by the mastermind (programmer) who dictates the actual orchestration of the entire system. If API is copyrightable, I'd love to be…

> A better analogy for API would be an agreement on how to communicate what needs to be done (and what has been done) between two persons.

Is that not what blueprints do?

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

#108

Post by sjg007 »

gen220 wrote: post #85
jayd16 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Design specs like door sizes, sink arrangements etc are not copyrighted. You're probably thinking about the reproduction of the design document, not adherence to the specifications that document describes.

I guess the question is: is the API in question a blueprint, or a building code? My intuition says that it's... somewhere in-between?

A building code is something different. It’s more like a requirement.

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

#109

Post by flyingfences »

jayd16 wrote: post #22

The questioning seems to imply there's a split among party lines. Is that a coincidence or is there some political aspect to this?

TFA:

> Eagle-eyed readers may have noticed that the argument seemed to split along partisan lines. Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—all apparent Google skeptics—are the court's conservatives. Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan form the liberal wing. Chief Justice Roberts, who asked tough questions of both sides, has often been seen as the court's swing vote since the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018.

> Grimmelmann argues that this was a coincidence. The late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, was known as a copyright hawk and could easily have sided with Oracle if she were still alive. Before his elevation to the Supreme Court, Justice Gorsuch authored at least one dovish opinion on copyright issues. In the 2014 Aereo decision, all of the court's liberals (along with two conservatives) held that Aereo had infringed copyright, while three other conservatives dissented.

Post reply on HN