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

131–140 of 965 posts

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

#131

Post by BoorishBears »

mindcrime wrote: post #101
BoorishBears wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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enough to create the illusion of letting people use their Java talents then dragged their feet with a half broken out-of-date language environment.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.

That's literally the next sentence that you intentionally omitted.

And I've seen plenty of people paint Oracle as some evil boogeyman like this is some good vs evil struggle.

Oracle wasn't trying to make Bad Things happen. They were seeking damages from a damaging situation, and if bad things had happened... I'd blame the patent trolls and judges that enable them.

Their insanity continues regardless of the verdict after all, and there are plenty of otherwise reasonable takes ruined by their existence.

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

#132

Post by throwaway8581 »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #34
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?

Generally, the Supreme Court finds narrowly on a specific point of friction in the case of a lesser court, answers the question, and kicks it back to that court, as a final answer for that very specific thing. The point in this case was, can Oracle overturn the "phone books cannot be Copyrighted" concept baked into tech law by the IBM v Compaq BIOS case. Seems the Supreme Court finally told Oracle the collection of m…

You are just totally wrong, the majority did not issue a ruling on copyrightability. It just said that even if the API is copyrightable Google's actions were "fair use," which is a legal doctrine allowing some use of copyrighted works without a license.

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

#134

Post by cjbprime »

throwaway8581 wrote: post #121
tantalor wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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; for…

This is not a persuasive argument because, by your logic, function implementations are also mathematical formulas and everyone agrees that they are copyrightable.

The copyrightable part of them is the creative decision making used to organize the workings of the function itself, not the formulas. Two functions could have identical algorithmic performance, but be stylistically and semantically different, have been written independently, and neither would infringe on the copyright of the other.

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

#135

Post by upbeat_general »

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…

It was definitely more than a few millions. Still might have been worth it but lawyers are expensive.

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

#136

Post by sriku »

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".

I suppose it makes sense from the perspective of copyright law, which protects artifacts. After all, one could say the same for quoting from a famous literary work .."ha now they're valuing literature in terms of number of words of prose!"

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

#137

Post by luckylion »

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #33

Had the ruling gone in Oracle's favor I can imagine some greedy company trying to procedurally-generate every API and copyright them all similar to this project which tried to copyright all musical melodies: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... In the case of the music project, it was for the protection of the community, but I can imagine such a system being used selfishly for software APIs…

Can you copyright generated things? You probably could copyright the way you're generating it, but I doubt you have a legal standing about the generated text or melody itself.

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

#138

Post by torstenvl »

oconnor663 wrote: post #38
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…

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.

Interoperability does have legal relevance, but because of programmer skills. Part of the fair use analysis turns on the legitimate goal of allowing programmers to use their skills in Java on the new platform.

IAAL but IANAIPL and most emphatically IANYL

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

#140

Post by kyrra »

abhv wrote: post #84
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…

UPDATE: based on Wikipedia [1], the "API" was likely saved by one of these people (all likely in their mid-20s!): Emily Barnet, 2020, Yale (2015) Diana Li Kim, 2020, Yale (2017) Arjun Ramamurti, 2020, Yale (2018) Daniel Richardson, 2020, Virginia (2018) Brittany Jones-Record, 2020, Stanford (2016) David Scott Louk, 2020, Yale (2015) Elizabeth B. Deutsch, 2021, Yale (2016) Joel F. Wacks, 2021, Chicago (2018) [1] https…

While Breyer wrote the piece, it was a single majority piece, which means all 6 justices agreed on it. The other 5 justices and their clerks were all effectively editors on the majority opinion.
Post reply on HN