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

371–380 of 965 posts

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

#371

Post by layoutIfNeeded »

jmull wrote: post #272
abhv wrote: post #21

Which of Breyer's clerks drafted this? They clearly understand many tech issues and I hope they find their place on some Federal circuit to herald an era of logic in tech law. "Google’s limited copying of the API is a transformative use. Google copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different computing environment without discarding a portion of a familiar programming language. Google’s purpose…

Why do you think Breyer and the other assenting justices wouldn't be able to come to this kind of decision without a clerk taking the lead?

Thinly veiled ageism.

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

#372

Post by shadowgovt »

jxf wrote: post #70

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use: > To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on…

I'm not sure why it's claimed they skirted the question... If I understand correctly, the Court answered the question when they issued bench instructions that APIs were to be considered copyrightable.

Is the difference that there's no SCOTUS precedent on the issue because it wasn't addressed in this case? Because (IANAL but) I'd assume the bench direction is itself precedent... In that if another circuit court tried to run a case as if the question was in the open, the Court would again ruler-slap them and say "No, assume APIs are copyrightable, plain language of the law."

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

#373

Post by andrewnicolalde »

xforeigner wrote: post #157
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.

Good, now can we get a ruling that prevents Google, RedHat, Microsoft and others from wrecking FLOSS projects with their stifling influence? Or prevent them from eradicating competing or even original projects by doing hostile rewrites or forks?

> Or prevent them from eradicating competing or even original projects by doing hostile rewrites or forks?

Wouldn't this directly contravene the findings in this case?

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

#374

Post by jhanschoo »

jxf wrote: post #70

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use: > To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on…

> That said, this case does establish a precedent that if your copying of an API is primarily for purposes of matching an interface so that developers can reimplement it, you're in fair use territory:

>> Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment.

It's even weaker than you think. It was important that Google's use of Java's API was on a non-competing product. It's still quite up in the air what happens if you provide a generic library using your competitor's API without licensing it from them.

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

#375

Post by ajayyy »

lvass wrote: post #197

So does this mean one can already interface with a GPL program/library and ignore it's license? Is this the end of the GPL dual-license business model? https://github.com/JoshCheek/clisp/blob/master/doc/Why-CLISP...

No, only if you write your own implementation. Google rewrote the Java API from scratch* except for using the same method signatures.

* Some small functions were directly copied, but nothing major

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

#376

Post by distribot »

tomsmeding wrote: post #355
distribot wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aside from the questionable inequalities, there's a missing closing parenthesis after the arguments on the first line, too. EDIT: as has been pointed out, the inequalities are correct. The original code can e.g. be found here, including doc comments showing the intended meaning of the arguments: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogletrialexhibits/2012-04-2... (all the way at the end)

Thanks this makes sense. So the toIndex is literally defined as "the index after the last element in the range".

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

#377

Post by paulmd »

datavirtue wrote: post #319
abhv wrote: post #21

Which of Breyer's clerks drafted this? They clearly understand many tech issues and I hope they find their place on some Federal circuit to herald an era of logic in tech law. "Google’s limited copying of the API is a transformative use. Google copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different computing environment without discarding a portion of a familiar programming language. Google’s purpose…

"Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not a market substitute for Java SE." Well that nukes it. The courts took how long to identify this precedented principle? It seems like the rest of the opinion is just there to ward off more of this tomfoolery for people that don't get it.

The lower courts have been frankly awful about refusing to acknowledge the rulings that SCOTUS has been handing down about software and technology in general. For example Alice Corp v CLS Bank International basically put an end to the validity of "[generic idea or business method], but on a computer" patents and the lower courts have basically said "haha ok great but we're not doing it", continuing to rule on "on a computer" patents as if they were valid, and with the patent office continuing to issue such patents.

Obviously this is copyright vs patent law but it goes to establish that there's been a big problem with the lower courts on "computer laws". It's a nexus of the problem with jurisdiction-shopping (finding a lower court that wants to keep lots of cases coming in and is willing to pump out questionable decisions to do so) and just the legal system being about 30 years behind the times in general in terms of understanding computers and how innovative a particular idea may be.

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

#378

Post by gpm »

shadowgovt wrote: post #372
jxf wrote: post #70

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use: > To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on…

I'm not sure why it's claimed they skirted the question... If I understand correctly, the Court answered the question when they issued bench instructions that APIs were to be considered copyrightable. Is the difference that there's no SCOTUS precedent on the issue because it wasn't addressed in this case? Because (IANAL but) I'd assume the bench direction is itself precedent... In that if another circuit court tried…

They did not say that APIs were copyrightable, they said that if "we assume, for argument's sake, that [APIs are] copyrightable, [...] the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use".

From page 1 of the opinion, i.e. the actual ruling, which follows the "syllabus" in the pdf. The syllabus is basically just a summary. It's page 5 of the pdf.

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

#379

Post by zucker42 »

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's also good that Breyer wrote this opinion, given that he was one of the two judges who dissented in Eldred v. Ashcroft almost 20 years ago[1]. Lessig called that opinion "perhaps the best opinion [Breyer] has ever written"[2] in his retrospective on the case.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

[2] https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_l...

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

#380

Post by raverbashing »

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".

I'm actually ok with that metric in this case as it's easy for judges to understand and it's actually a good proxy.
Post reply on HN