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

331–340 of 965 posts

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

#331

Post by lostcolony »

zhengyi13 wrote: post #289
lostcolony wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

In the D&D world that I'm familiar with, we call these sort of people "rules lawyers", and there too, they ruin the game for everyone.

Oh, 100%. I shared Thousand Year Old Vampire with a relative that matches this, thinking his love of history would make it an interesting thing, and his response was "I can already think of ways to beat the system", even before he actually read the system. It's like...yeah, it's a single player pen and paper RPG. You probably can. Why...why would you though?

But that's what I mean; exploiting perceived flaws in the system is a greater goal -even when it ruins the game for themselves-. Because there is a greater sense of satisfaction in finding loopholes. And I understand that sense; I just find more value in understanding the underlying goal and intent and delivering on that.

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

#332

Post by jcranmer »

nikanj wrote: post #149
_Microft wrote: post #29

Is this a final judgement? Is it over now?

Time for Oracle to pull out the Sun patent portfolio and start over.

IIRC, they lost on the patent portfolio at the very beginning. That's how the case went to CAFC instead of the Ninth Circuit--there was a patent argument in the original appeal, which was dropped several years ago. And having already lost on the patent question in the past, any future case can point back to that decision and say "can't relitigate this point."

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

#333

Post by marc__1 »

Oracle's response[1]:

"The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater — the barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower. They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can. This behavior is exactly why regulatory authorities around the world and in the United States are examining Google's business practices."

- Dorian Daley, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Oracle

[1]https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/oracle-statement-re...

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

#334

Post by fX0rObfoMN4 »

jcranmer wrote: post #262
jpdb wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And OpenJDK is GPLv2 with a classpath exception. So why is Google unable to use Java's API here while Oracle able to use Amazon's API?

I thought this case is from back when Android was using Apache Harmony?

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

#335

Post by jacques_chester »

lisper wrote: post #311

Although I applaud the effect of this decision, I can't help but agree with Clarence Thomas that the reasoning behind it is not sound. It waffles back and forth between arguments for fair use and arguments that APIs are not (or at least should not be) copyrightable in the first place. You can't have it both ways. If APIs are copyrightable (and a plain reading of the text of the law appears to indicate that they are)…

> It waffles back and forth between arguments for fair use and arguments that APIs are not (or at least should not be) copyrightable in the first place.

The precedential parts are unambiguous: Google's actions were fair use, as a matter of law (this is code to lower courts to not fuck around). The majority opinion did not answer whether APIs are copyrightable in the first place because it was unnecessary to settle the dispute.

The rest of it is obiter dicta. Thomas's objection, as is usually the case, is irrelevant.

IANAL, TINLA.

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

#336

Post by mikevm »

distribot wrote: post #301
softwaredoug wrote: post #269

Judge William Alsup learned to code for this case, and was therefore able to avoid a lot of the BS being peddled around the significance of some of the code: > The argument centered on a function called rangeCheck. ... It was in Oracle’s interest to play up the significance of rangeCheck as much as possible, and David Boies, Oracle’s lawyer, began to argue that Google had copied rangeCheck so that it could take Andro…

I just took a look at the rangeCheck: https://majadhondt.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/googles-9-lines/ Is this example correct? Can someone explain to me how this: if (toIndex > arrayLen) is correct? If the array length is say 5, and toIndex is 5, that should still throw an index out of bounds exception, right? But it would be acceptable here.

toIndex is defined to be the index after the last element of the range (a half-closed interval).

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

#337

Post by ocdtrekkie »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #298
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing, so I'm not sure how this could be anything but a sad day for sustainable open source development. If you're big enough and have enough lawyers, there's no reason to license software you want to build on.

On the other hand, it's the sort of ruling that could make companies less skittish about using GPL software.

Solely because the GPL may now be so weak nobody is worried about enforcement. If Google can so blatantly create a monopoly scale business by ripping off something instead of complying with the license or licensing it separately, there is no teeth to the GPL at all, and releasing your business' code under GPL is an existential risk.

They might use the GPL software, but feel no compunction to either open source their own modifications nor pay for an enterprise license.

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

#338

Post by dpifke »

I found this section (pp. 33-34) particularly interesting:

...enforcement of the Sun Java API copyright might give Oracle a significant share of these funds. It is important, however, to consider why and how Oracle might have become entitled to this money. When a new interface, like an API or a spreadsheet program, first comes on the market, it may attract new users because of its expressive qualities, such as a better visual screen or because of its superior functionality. As time passes, however, it may be valuable for a different reason, namely, because users, including programmers, are just used to it. They have already learned how to work with it. [...]

This source of Android’s profitability has much to do with third parties’ (say, programmers’) investment in Sun Java programs. It has correspondingly less to do with Sun’s investment in creating the Sun Java API. We have no reason to believe that the Copyright Act seeks to protect third parties’ investment in learning how to operate a created work. [...]

Finally, given programmers’ investment in learning the Sun Java API, to allow enforcement of Oracle’s copyright here would risk harm to the public.

If one were to apply the above logic to anti-trust instead of copyright fair use, one might wonder if the Court could find harm to the public in certain behaviors of e.g. a monopoly email provider or monopoly social networking site.

(A big argument against anti-trust enforcement against Google and others is that the Sherman Act is designed to protect consumers, not competitors.)

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

#339

Post by orangecat »

softwaredoug wrote: post #269

Judge William Alsup learned to code for this case, and was therefore able to avoid a lot of the BS being peddled around the significance of some of the code: > The argument centered on a function called rangeCheck. ... It was in Oracle’s interest to play up the significance of rangeCheck as much as possible, and David Boies, Oracle’s lawyer, began to argue that Google had copied rangeCheck so that it could take Andro…

Judge William Alsup learned to code for this case

He learned Java for the case, but he was already an accomplished developer: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...

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

#340

Post by daniellarusso »

luckylion wrote: post #137
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.

For video and photography, there has to be a human element involved.

A fixed, CCTV feed of a beach with a daily sunset is not copyrightable, nor is a non-human using a photo camera.

Post reply on HN