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

111–120 of 965 posts

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

#111

Post by teraflop »

TinoDidriksen wrote: post #90
oconnor663 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question from a layman: Does "interoperability" as a concept have any legal relevance here? Like focusing on programmer skills seems kind of beside the point, which is really for two pieces of software to be able to interoperate.

Yes, reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is one of the things explicitly allowed by laws such as DMCA.

The decision talks about "interoperability" as a general concept, but neither the DMCA nor reverse engineering is at all relevant to its legal reasoning.

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

#112

Post by Spivak »

quotemstr wrote: post #50
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14

This is a pretty unfortunate ruling and I have some questions about the shoddy claims made in this document (the one suggesting Oracle benefitted from its platform being ripped off without license is particularly rich, especially considering it was the death warrant on Java as a mobile platform entirely, right before mobile became huge). But what can we expect from the fine folks behind Citizens United?

Upvoted because you shouldn't be downvoted into oblivion just for having an opinion contrary to the HN hivemind. It's okay to think Oracle should have won here. I disagree, but there are reasonable people on both sides.

In thought Oracle should have won this case as well and the opinion basically affirmed the reasoning but went the other way. The basis for Oracle winning was that copying the Java API for interoperability with developers rather than for existing software was copying for Java’s beauty rather than being purely functional.

Whenever this case came up on HN people outright refused to acknowledge that one’s intentions even mattered when copying an API.

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

#113

Post by mindcrime »

Spivak wrote: post #89
mindcrime wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but it's such a strong precedent in favor of copying API's being "fair use" that it at least partly moots the more general question of "are API's copyrightable in the first place." I think this was a good decision all in all. AIUI, the SCOTUS try to limit the scope of their decisions as much as possible, to avoid over-generalization.

I don’t think it moots the point at all. * Google’s API copying can’t be fair use if they weren’t copyrightable in the first place. * If you do copy an API because of it’s beauty and not for either interoperability with software or interoperability with developers then it seems that you would run afoul of copyright.

If you do copy an API because of it’s beauty and not for either interoperability with software or interoperability with developers then it seems that you would run afoul of copyright.

That's why I said it partly moots the issue, not completely. Yes, you could conceivably still run afoul of copyright in some cases, but at first blush, this seems like a precedent that will make it very unlikely that that would happen. I guess time will tell, but that's my initial perception. IANAL, of course.

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

#114

Post by orra »

tyingq wrote: post #60
caf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As both that thread title and the Supreme Court opinion say, the jury found in favour of Google. They were then overruled by the Federal Court, which has now in turn been overruled by the Supremes.

Edit: Heh, yep. I was blind to it, fixed, thank you!

You misunderstand.

It is a change in decision from the appeals court, not a change from the jury's decision.

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

#115

Post by danans »

pm90 wrote: post #82
javajosh wrote: post #40

Does anyone have a good estimate of what this case cost Oracle and Google, especially in terms of legal fees, and where that money went ultimately?

The money goes into lawyers fees. Because of the way this decision went, I’m sure Google considers it a worthy investment and Oracle considers it a temporary setback as it pursues other extortion schemes using Sun’s Patents. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a specific division of lawyers dedicated to finding novel ways of extorting wealth using Patents; this would likely just be one of the cases they were working…

> worth a shot, to throw a few millions (if that?)

Teams of high end lawyers over about a decade? Probably at least 10s of millions.

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

#116

Post by benburleson »

reactspa wrote: post #100
teruakohatu wrote: post #7

> "Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of declaring code from the API, which amounts to virtually all the declaring code needed to call up hundreds of different tasks. Those 11,500 lines, however, are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.86 million total lines. In considering “the amount and substantiality of the portion used” in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed as…

It is fascinating that code is now being measured quantitatively. Number of "lines of code".

My first manager, when I was a young engineer at Raytheon would like a word.

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

#117

Post by cowmoo728 »

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.

Oracle (or some other company) can bring another case. It has to be different enough that it isn't immediately struck down based on precedent, but similar enough that a ruling would require appealing to the Supreme Court and force them to overturn or invalidate the Oracle v Google precedent. The chance of this happening is negligible, but this is basically the conservative plan for getting the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v Wade precedent.

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

#119

Post by vips7L »

quotemstr wrote: post #62
The_rationalist wrote: post #9

Now can they please use a modern jdk on Android? It's about time

They are using a modern JDK on Android. The standard library is literally OpenJDK, and the runtime is the excellent ART JVM, which has super-fast GC and tons of mobile-specific optimizations (like zygote space support and switching to a different GC when the app goes into the background). IMHO, you really don't want HotSpot on mobile. ART is good work.

I think he's just referring to a modern version of Java the language, not ART vs HotSpot. I don't think anyone really cares which runtime is running.

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

#120

Post by reactspa »

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…

Even if it were computer code, I think the Majority argued that use of 0.4 percent of the code can be considered Fair Use. In films, textbooks, etc., I think (though I'm not certain) there's precedent that up to 5% of the product can be reproduced (copied) under Fair Use, for criticism, academic analysis, etc.
Post reply on HN