Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by bobmalone123 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

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enough to create the illusion of letting people use their Java talents then dragged their feet with a half broken out-of-date language environment.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

It looks like you are saying that what Google did may be bad too, but you are happy anyways because it’s good for some group of people (which may include you). This actually stifle innovation since companies will now consider that capital spent on designing APIs May be leveraged by their competitor simply stealing the API and save on that investment.

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

#182

Post by throwaway8581 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #170

throwaway8581 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, definitely not. Computer code is not a formula. A formula is an idea. It describes the nature of something computable. It does not explain how to compute. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_algorithm The programmer must understand the formula in order to write computer code that implements it. The result is a creative/expressive work which is copyrightable.

Yes, but neither is an API signature a formula. I was assuming the logic of the person I was responding to, to show that it could not be right.

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

#183

Post by jcranmer » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #143

oblio wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM would probably want to talk to 99% of computing companies out there, not just BIOS companies :-)

Including Oracle, since their copying of IBM's SQL API is what the whole company is based on.

And Oracle is now copying AWS's API to try to enter the cloud market. (This was explicitly brought up in one of the amici briefs).

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

#184

Post by ghaff » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #164

luckylion wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see why not. Have you ever used code generation as part of software you have built? Is there any reason why generated code could not be copyrighted as part of a larger system? For example, suppose I define a data model for a public-facing API and then generate SDKs in various popular programming languages to interact with the public-facing API. If I were a major corporation that owned s…

A more obvious example is that, if you write a program that generates music based on some algorithm, that work is presumably copyrightable.

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

#185

Post by kube-system » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

jraph wrote: post #162

f-serif wrote: post #31

I don't understand why people uses such stupid font style -_-

uBlock origin has a convenient font blocker, for what is worth. Saves many kilobytes, and readability.

It's not going to do much for a PDF :)

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

#186

Post by mantap » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

throwaway8581 wrote: post #150

cjbprime wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An API design is also a creative and highly stylistic work. Anyone who has ever designed a large API, or suffered a poorly designed one, can attest to that. A bad design can work just as well as a good design. Also, you are distorting the argument by making it about one method signature instead of thousands of interconnected types and methods that work together to present an ergonomic interface for the developer.

Arguably API design is the most creative aspect of programming. The space of possible interfaces is infinite, whereas function implementations are heavily constrained by the interface and often there is only a handful of ways to write an implementation for a given interface.

Two equally good programmers may come up with radically different interfaces. Whereas if given an interface and instructed to implement it, they are likely to converge to a similar implementation.

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

#187

Post by hajile » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

qalmakka wrote: post #12

This is one of the most important legal decisions in the history of software. The US Supreme Court has basically just saved the whole software industry (and FOSS projects) from being wrecked by patent trolls.

I’d make the case that it instead saved closed source coding.

Open source code is still usually copyrighted. Nobody would trust closed languages and APIs unless they paid a fortune for them while open source with a grant would be safe to use.

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

#188

Post by asimpletune » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

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.

Function implementations are definitely not mathematical formulas. To see what I mean, check out any HN discussions on TLA+ syntax.

It’s when you see an actual mathematical syntax that you realize how different programming really is.

Not try to be tedious here, just pointing out that actually programming is different than math, even for a language like Haskell.

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

#189

Post by throwaway8581 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #180

throwaway8581 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An API design is also a creative and highly stylistic work. Anyone who has ever designed a large API, or suffered a poorly designed one, can attest to that. A bad design can work just as well as a good design. Also, you are distorting the argument by making it about one method signature instead of thousands of interconnected types and methods that work together to present an ergonomic interface for the developer.

The quality of good/bad or ergonomic is insufficient to meet the threshold for copyright protection. A table of baseball batting averages or telephone numbers is not copyrightable, no matter how good or bad it is organized.

An API design is plenty creative. The bar for what is creative enough to get copyright protection is extremely low, basically zero. An alphabetized phone book is literally the example people have to use for something that isn't.

There's a reason the Supreme Court didn't adopt the argument you are pushing and instead ruled on fair use grounds: It's a bad argument because a large API is clearly a creative work.

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

#190

Post by tpush » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

The comments on this case always seem a bit confused to me.

APIs have been copyrightable (in the US) since 2014(or 15, not sure). This ruling only affects the fair use judgement, and makes no further statement on the question of copyright; meaning APIs are still subject to copyright.