Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 771 posts

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#31

Post by rektide »

Aqueous wrote: post #6

This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere. If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters…

> This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere.

This case has been a ticking time bomb, where the law is to decide whether ideas are patentable. Extremely scary news, seeing it go badly.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#33

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

yencabulator wrote: post #28
flowerlad wrote: post #3

This isn't just a disaster for Google. This is a disaster for competition in the tech industry and a disaster for consumers. If APIs can be copyrighted, what's next? File formats? On-the-wire protocols?

Why not screw heads and threads, too? Apple wouldn't have to just use hard-to-find screwdrivers, they could just make a new screw shape, copyright the design, and then it'll be even harder to open their gadgets.

If that happens the bits will be on alibaba before the product is shipped to media.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#34

Post by jayd16 »

sjg007 wrote: post #27
mathraki wrote: post #9

Where are the expert witnesses in this case?? Do we really expect judges in their 60s and 70s to understand basics of coding in order to come to the right conclusion?? I put myself in their shoes, if I had never looked at a line of code I couldn't even start to imagine what an API vs real code is. I'd probably think it's some made up concept that Google is using to save money and circumvent the law.

To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.

Design specs like door sizes, sink arrangements etc are not copyrighted.

You're probably thinking about the reproduction of the design document, not adherence to the specifications that document describes.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#35

Post by buttersbrian »

buttersbrian wrote: post #23
coldpie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows. Does Amazon implement any of Oracle's APIs? This ruling is about to make the software patent mess look like a walk in the park.

I would wholly expect Amazon to sue over S3 implementations by Oracle, IBM for SQL, etc. I would want the whole industry to target Oracle. Get their pound of flesh.

Mutually Assured Destruction from the fallout of a terrible decision that forces the SC to re-evaluate (through another case etc) is better than letting something like this settle.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#36

Post by teruakohatu »

sjg007 wrote: post #27
mathraki wrote: post #9

Where are the expert witnesses in this case?? Do we really expect judges in their 60s and 70s to understand basics of coding in order to come to the right conclusion?? I put myself in their shoes, if I had never looked at a line of code I couldn't even start to imagine what an API vs real code is. I'd probably think it's some made up concept that Google is using to save money and circumvent the law.

To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.

Not even remotely the same. Screw threads, hole sizes, width of timber etc ie. specifications are the same.

People make a big deal about beautiful apis. Almost all apis are simply functional. The complexity lies in the implementation not the specification.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#37

Post by tharne »

jayd16 wrote: post #22

The questioning seems to imply there's a split among party lines. Is that a coincidence or is there some political aspect to this?

The American right in it's current form tends to treat everything as property and is very supportive of defending all things copyright related. A lot of this has to do with the waning influence of libertarian thought on the American right and it's drift towards a more corporatist philosophy. The American left is better in this respect, but has likewise become more corporatist in it's outlook over time.

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#38

Post by sjg007 »

jayd16 wrote: post #34
sjg007 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.

Design specs like door sizes, sink arrangements etc are not copyrighted. You're probably thinking about the reproduction of the design document, not adherence to the specifications that document describes.

Those are common things which are excluded. So maybe Google has some argument on the parts... Oracle has an argument on the whole.

https://www.aia.org/articles/26591-understanding-the-scope-o...

To quote:

"""Under the AWCPA, an architectural work is statutorily defined as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans or drawings,” and “includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features,” such as common windows, doors, and other staple building components. Accordingly, per the definition, while individual standard features and architectural elements classifiable as ideas or concepts are not themselves copyrightable, an architect’s original combination or arrangement of such elements may be."""

Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

#39

Post by simonh »

pfortuny wrote: post #25
phkahler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? That has implications for language implementations too. Who would own the standard library for any given language? What about programs that call API functions? Are they derivative works too? An API is necessarily functional first and foremost. It would cause chaos and some weird dystopian future if Oracle wins.

It is usually in the interest of the designer of the API to have as many users as possible. BUT in this case we are talking not of using part of an API (say the Math library to implement a physics engine is assembly and link it) but of reimplementing a whole language which has, as of today an when the events discussed took place (even if we agree to hate it) an owner.

>It is usually in the interest of the designer of the API to have as many users as possible.

When they first design and publish it yes, but Oracle didn't design and publish the Java APIs, they bought them after they had becomes very popular and widely used.

At that point they don't need to care about making it popular, it already is, all they care about is milking that existing ecosystem for every penny they can get. If future API publishers care about this they can just license out their API spec, but right now Oracle just wants to be able to squeeze whoever they can until the pips squeak.

Post reply on HN