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

241–250 of 965 posts

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

#241

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #123
thedevelopnik wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There is no appellate court above the Supreme Court. The only way things could change now is if Congress/President passed a new law, and I don’t think API copyrights are near the top of the list.

> There is no appellate court above the Supreme Court. That is true. > The only way things could change now is if Congress/President passed a new law That isn't true at all; the Supreme Court is free to change the law by itself. Someone could sue over the same question and get a different result overruling this one.

They are free to change their mind, but are very reticent to do so. What compelling reason would there be to revisit this that could possibly change the outcome?

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

#242

Post by curt15 »

kaba0 wrote: post #192
mindcrime wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What bad things would have happened? This ruling specifically says that it was fair use, not that APIs are copyrightable - which seems to be the buggy man. As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws.

>As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws.

This opinion doesn't say so.

"We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copy-righted. We shall ask instead whether Google’s use of part of that API was a “fair use."

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

#243

Post by lostcolony »

VikingCoder wrote: post #178
bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

It's interesting reading Thomas' dissent. As per typical Thomas appears to be arguing that it's the letter of the law that matters, whereas it's the majority opinion that the motivations and substance of the law are primary. Hackers and programmers tend to try and read the law like computer code to be "hacked" and exploited based on the letter of the law. So you'd expect us to be more sympathetic to Thomas' view. So…

No, when the code allows an exploit, that's a bug. Thomas is supposed to help us understand the intent of the code - what the Requirement was. Yes, it's better for us if the code reflects the intent perfectly. But to the degree that's not possible, we need someone to Interpret the code. Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. The Legislature should do a f…

Tangent, but you said something I find really telling, in conjunction with OP's post.

Textualism to its proponents is very much like exploiting a system; figuring out the exact rules it defines and finding workarounds. It may not even be to a person's own goals (hence the individual not feeling biased when thinking this way), but is enjoyable in its own right in finding those loopholes (like the meme of the referee allowing Airbud to play, "there's nothing in the rule book!").

To its critics, it's like blindly implementing the ticket as written, rather than asking questions and making sure the intent is understood and the problem is being solved correctly.

Which explains, in a surprisingly empathetic way, why I am not a textualist, and why some of my family are, when it comes to political discussions.

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

#245

Post by tyingq »

This seems to change part of the debate on "Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC" that happened here recently:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26590524

Specifically, this thread about copying the readline API: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26606328

Stallman's contention that a judge would look unfavorably on cloning the API signature because it could be viewed as subterfuge...seems very weakened here, if copying an API is fair use.

I suppose this also gives companies like Amazon a green light for clones of GPL software exposing an API that's identical.

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

#246

Post by quotemstr »

The_rationalist wrote: post #218
quotemstr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 am talking about C2 JIT support and other sota GCs. ART has an increasingly growing technical debt. No support for constant dynamic so no support for the upcoming pattern matching. No support for sub 1ms GC No support for the already available Vector API. No support for value types. No support for generic specialization. No support for Loom. ART is NIH and support with Java and Kotlin will explode into two worlds,…

If you think ART is an AOT system, you might want to refresh your understanding of the system. ART has had a JIT for a long time now. Sure, HotSpot might have some features ART lacks, but ART has features that HotSpot lacks, so it's a wash. (And ART already has sub-millisecond GC pause times.) It's good and healthy for a language to have multiple implementations and there's no obligation whatsoever on the part of the Android people to switch to Oracle's JVM.

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

#247

Post by curt15 »

jkingsbery wrote: post #232

I 100% agree that this is the right outcome. Any other outcome would be a nightmare for software developers and would inhibit the development of products. But the dissent raises an interesting point. I think it shows how the crafting of legislation by people who are wholly ignorant of technology can create problems. While programmers recognize the difference between an API and it's implementation, Thomas makes the in…

The court made no holding on whether APIs can be copyrighted.

"We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copy-righted. "

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

#248

Post by tantalor »

marcodiego wrote: post #224
tantalor wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consider the following: gcd(X, Y) = X if X == Y or gcd(X - Y, Y) if Y Is this a formula? Should this be copyright-able?

Of course not, this is math; it is not copyrightable.

It would have made perfect sense to Euclid.

Some computers can understand this and execute it as if it were computer code. That's amazing! Kudos to those compute language designers and compiler authors. But their ingenuity does not suddenly grant copyright protection to anything their clever compilers can now understand.

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

#249

Post by jpdb »

jcranmer wrote: post #183
bryanlarsen wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Are you referring to the S3 API? I believe the S3 API is explicitly licensed under Apache.

Disclaimer: I was previously employed by Amazon and currently Google. Opinions are my own, I'm not a lawyer, etc.

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

#250

Post by flyingfences »

kaba0 wrote: post #165
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.

Why? It wasn’t about whether APIs are under copyright (they are), but whether this particular case constitutes fair use. I think the effect of this decision was way overblown.

> whether this particular case constitutes fair use

The English common law system relies heavily upon judicial precedent. A ruling in this particular case that the copying of an API constitutes fair use will inform decisions in future cases of similar copying.

Post reply on HN