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

201–210 of 965 posts

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

#201

Post by bobmalone123 »

throwaway3699 wrote: post #147
thedevelopnik wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?”

It's still silly. Imagine if you needed to purchase a license for the shape of plug that fits inside a standard plug socket - to build any appliance.

Imagine if you had to pay a software developer 300K a year to design that API that you think it’s cool to steal.

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

#203

Post by simonh »

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enough to create the illusion of letting people use their Java talents then dragged their feet with a half broken out-of-date language environment.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

That's a thorough miss-understanding and misrepresentation of the situation. It also has nothing to do with open source specifically.

Google never promoted Dalvik as being a licensed Java VM implementation and never claimed it was a compatible Java runtime. The license was for logos and trademarks. As long as they didn't use those logos and trademarks, there's no violation of the license for those things. The API case is based on copyright, not trademarks or licenses so is a separate issue.

This is why Microsoft could lose their dispute with Sun over the MSJVM which was a non-compliant JVM implementation, but still come out with J# which was an implementation of the Java language running on .NET.

Microsoft licenses the Java trademarks and claimed the MSJVM was an implementation of the Java runtime, while breaking compatibility requirements for the license. Therefore they were in violation of the license. The .NET platform was never claimed to be anything to do with Java, so having Java code run on it in the form of J# was fine. The situation with Google using the Java language running on Dalvik is exactly analogous.

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

#204

Post by sriram_sun »

jcranmer wrote: post #179
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.

My understanding is no. Copyright requires human authorship (the case of the monkey selfie found it to be public domain because a monkey did it, e.g.), and code written by a machine is likely to follow similar precedent and be uncopyrightable.

Well if it's your monkey (or program) that generated it (music or art or whatever) and the monkey can't talk, what's to prevent you from copyrighting it?

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

#205

Post by ethbr0 »

torstenvl wrote: post #159
ethbr0 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not entirely. Per my understanding, this is a fairly big shift: "The fair use question is a mixed question of fact and law. Reviewing courts should appropriately defer to the jury’s findings of underlying facts, but the ultimate question whether those facts amount to a fair use is a legal question for judges to decide de novo. This approach does not violate the Seventh Amendment’s prohibition on courts reexamining fa…

That analysis is addressing an argument that the Supreme Court could not overturn the finding that it was not fair use. That argument was based on the Seventh Amendment's reexamination clause. The Supreme Court held that the reexamination clause did not prevent it from addressing this issue, because the question is a mixed question of law and fact, i.e., it's a legal conclusion based on evidentiary facts. The Supreme…

It, or other reviewing courts. So the net effect will be to hopefully create more consistency around fair use defenses. Which is good for innovators.

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

#206

Post by jeswin »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #126

For better or worse, the same arguments ( "API is copyrightable" ) is what was used in the past to prevent 98's Microsoft from doing embrace-extend-extinguish to Java with their "JavaVM with P/Invoke'd Win32 API". The idea in that case was that when you try to implement something identical to the Java language and standard library, it doesn't matter if you call it Java or "Visual J++"; you are still implementing Java…

There's a huge difference. Microsoft was already a monopoly on desktops (and was relying on that dominance to EEE) when that happened, while in Google's case the smartphone industry was nascent.

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

#207

Post by mega_dingus »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #160
reactspa wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Now? I've personally heard quantities of code measured in "lines of code" (or, thousands of lines of code-- "K-LOCs") going back to the mid-90's. An acquaintance who worked for IBM in the 70's said it dates back at least that far (measuring developer productivity in the "K-LOCs" they produce).

See Mythical Man-Month published in 1975 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

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

#208

Post by lostcolony »

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".

How else do you determine what amount infringes? One of the four factors is "The Amount or Substantiality of the Portion Used".

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

#209

Post by Edman274 »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #126

For better or worse, the same arguments ( "API is copyrightable" ) is what was used in the past to prevent 98's Microsoft from doing embrace-extend-extinguish to Java with their "JavaVM with P/Invoke'd Win32 API". The idea in that case was that when you try to implement something identical to the Java language and standard library, it doesn't matter if you call it Java or "Visual J++"; you are still implementing Java…

I think the difference here would be that the "point" of Google copying the API was not to make Oracle's Java be irrelevant, but rather to get a pool of developers that already knew the platform. Whether Oracle's Java stayed as popular or even got bigger was irrelevant for their purposes. The "point" of Microsoft's copying of the API was to make it so that eventually, people would only use their version, like they did with MS-DOS. The Supreme Court was considering the "point" when they were applying a test on "what kind of economic impact does the copying have on the original" and "does this act as a substitute for the original", which is on pages 32 and 33, where they're saying "Oracle / Sun tried to get into the smartphone space but couldn't hack it, Google entering that space didn't meaningfully affect them".

On the flip side, if Microsoft had been judged by the same standard, they might determine that Microsoft's reimplementation of an incompatible Java would have too much of an economic impact on the original to be fair use.

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

#210

Post by HumblyTossed »

mycall wrote: post #127
HumblyTossed wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes a NOP is an instruction to do something. It tells the cpu to not change state for a period of time equal to how long it takes to execute the NOP.

How about in a higher level language? C program that is all semicolons vs. a book of all semicolons? Neither computer nor human is any more knowledgeable after reading it.

I haven't compiled a C program in years so I'm honestly not sure what an all ; program would do. But assuming it would just do nothing, well that is still an instruction to the computer. Delays are very meaningful. Serial communication is a great example.
Post reply on HN