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

101–110 of 965 posts

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

#101

Post by mindcrime »

BoorishBears wrote: post #46
mindcrime wrote: post #17

This appears to be the "money quote": We reach the conclusion that in this case, where Google reimplemented a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, Google’s copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use of that material as a matter of law. Also, while I hate to just repeat things that have already been said, I feel compelled t…

I'm glad for the verdict but this is such bullshit. Google implemented exactly enough to create the illusion of letting people use their Java talents then dragged their feet with a half broken out-of-date language environment. And they did all this to save money, not some sort of noble rebellion or clever hack. > Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. Schmidt said Google would have paid for tha…

I don't know why people are acting like this is some victory of open source

I don't know that anybody is saying that Google did anything specifically Good or Just or Noble or anything. The celebratory aspect is more based on all the Bad Things that would have happened in the future if this decision had come down in favor of Oracle.

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

#104

Post by sircastor »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #26
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?

In the US, the Supreme Court is the static const readonly final. It's over. There is literally no route of appeal or any way Oracle can keep this case going without a whole new lawsuit. The Supreme Court can elect to make a ruling and then send it back to a smaller court _if they choose_ for final assessment, but they did not do that here, making this ruling definitive.

> In the US, the Supreme Court is the static const readonly final

This made me laugh out loud. Thanks

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

#105

Post by tantalor »

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; formulas or algorithms

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ31.pdf

> public static int MaxNum (int x, int y, int z)

This is literally a mathematical formula, hence does not have copyright protection.

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

#107

Post by Finnucane »

curt15 wrote: post #25

"(e) The fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technological world." So the opinion effectively preserves the status quo in the software industry while sidestepping the question of API copyrightability.

Was the question of API copyrightability even raised before the court? I'd guess Google didn't think it was in their interest to go that far.

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

#108

Post by nikanj »

politelemon wrote: post #15
tyingq wrote: post #5

The HN discussion from 2016 (Jury finds for Google): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11781053 From 2018 (Oracle revives matter via appeal): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16688521 Edit: Fixed, had written "Jury finds for Oracle", which was NOT what happened in 2016. Argh.

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?

Realistically, both Google and Oracle are 800lb gorillas and the battle will continue via lobbying legistlators, if not court appeals. It's very hard to believe Oracle would just keel over and give up.

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

#109

Post by thaumasiotes »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #88
flumpcakes wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that a dissent has to be written, even if they all agree in the majority opinion/ruling?

You also forget that a justice might feel more comfortable with ruling in opposition so that he/she can write the dissent, but if his/her vote was a swing vote, the justice might have second thoughts about that. It's easy to vote in opposition when you know it doesn't matter - and then, hey, you get to write the position for the losing side.

> You also forget that a justice might feel more comfortable with ruling in opposition so that he/she can write the dissent, but if his/her vote was a swing vote, the justice might have second thoughts about that.

This doesn't make any sense. Justices vote in the majority while disagreeing with part or all of the majority opinion all the time. The mechanism for complaining about the majority reasoning is the same in either case: you write a separate opinion detailing your personal analysis of the case. That opinion is called a "dissent" if you voted against the majority and a "concurrence" if you voted with the majority.

There is no concept of "the dissent". Any dissenting justice is free to write one; it is routine for one case to have multiple dissents.

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

#110

Post by thedevelopnik »

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 had the opportunity once to talk to an IP lawyer for Oracle and brought this up. I specifically brought up the S3 compatibility of their cloud storage among other instances.

His reply was “without admitting anything specific, how do you know we haven’t purchased private licenses for anything you just mentioned?”

Post reply on HN