Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

381–390 of 771 posts

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

#381
post #358
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google lawyer should be fired. I can’t believe you’d put the best of the best in front of the SC and the guy didn’t even sound like he could describe what an API actually is in non-technical terms. I don’t see how he represented the best legal representation Google could buy.

He also argued that there was only one way Oracle's Java libraries could have been designed, which is clearly false, and the justices picked up on that.

really astonishing. wonder what google saw in him. the oracle lawyer was far more prepared and technically cogent.

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

#382

This is not good...not good at all! If Oracle wins, to me with zero knowledge around copyright laws and legalese topics, means small to medium companies will close down out of fear of getting sued for using or implementing a competitor's APIs. Not only that, it feels like the whole technological "civilization" will collapse after this and I'm not exaggerating, because thousands of people will lose their job simply be…

This is an overreaction.

We already are in the state you describe, except for patents. The doubly linked list is patented [0]. Selling something over the internet was patented [1]. The list could go on and on.

Every major software company has so many patents that they could find an infringement in almost any software company.

Why hasn't this happened? Because, like copyright, someone needs to actually bring suit. That doesn't happen that often. It happens more often with patents in the form of patent trolls actually, and there's no reason to believe api copyright suits would happen more often than patent suits... I think api copyright suits are actually going to be less lucrative and harder to prove on average.

So yeah, it seems like the current state of software patents is already far worse than APIs being copyrightable would be, and yet the sky is not falling, civilization is not collapsing, and business continues like usual.

[0]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7028023B2/en

[1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5715314A/en

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

#383
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. That act of organization likely implies that the Java API (taken as a whole) constitutes a copyrightable work, even if the individual method signatures are not. The problem with this theory is that class a…

Isn't that exactly what the article is saying about the justices worrying it could "undermine copyright of computer programs"? What is the difference between an API (interface) and implementation? The algorithm. And algorithms are not copyrightable. A lot can be interpreted into the law when it is beneficial for everybody to do so. But interpretation has its limits. Some laws must be made explicit by the legislature.

> What is the difference between an API (interface) and implementation? The algorithm.

Not the algorithm. The algorithm is essentially the recipe. The algorithm is merge sort, or depth first search. It's the contract the API gives you, more or less. "This function does merge sort." But there are unlimited possible implementations of merge sort and each one is copyrightable. And one implementation doesn't infringe the copyright of the other ones, even when they're the same algorithm, but you have to write your own. Copyright doesn't protect function, it protects works of authorship.

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

#384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your thing of the MP4 patents.

It was 2017 that the last MP3 patents expired, which is pretty recent, IMO. It was patented on the encode side about 10 years longer than on the decode side.

Yeah, I remember having to use nonfree repos to enable MP3 playback on my Linux machine back in the day. I could not remember when it stopped being the case, but 2017 seems about right.

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

#385

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to be surprised by this, I got the exact same impression from the hearing. The problem for Google on the copyrightability front is that "compilations" of non-copyrightable items can be copyrightable even if the underlying items themselves are not, if the "selection, coordination, or arrangement" of those items involves sufficient creativity to be considered an "original work…

>For example, recipes are not individually copyrightable, but if you compile a set of recipes and publish them in a cookbook, the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. Recipes that contains more than just the basic list of ingredients and instructions can be copyrightable. Include a picture, illustration or a bit of creative text and copyright will apply on that. That's the true reason why cookbooks fall under copyr…

While that might be true, it's not really relevant to the underlying point, which is the selection and arrangement of non-copyrightable material can result in a copyrightable work. You can replace recipes with any other example if you'd like.

> Even when applying copyright to an "arrangement" of items that are not copyrightable, as in a database, there needs to be creativity expressed, otherwise it will not qualify for copyright.

As the Supreme Court said in Feist: "To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice."

This is not a very difficult threshold to meet (and Google has already conceded it has been met.)

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

#386
Google broke compatibility with Java, so I don't think that the argument that this nullifies the right to reimplementation holds water.

If Android had been implemented in such a way as to allow pre-existing java applications to execute natively this would be a very different situation.

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

#387

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to be surprised by this, I got the exact same impression from the hearing. The problem for Google on the copyrightability front is that "compilations" of non-copyrightable items can be copyrightable even if the underlying items themselves are not, if the "selection, coordination, or arrangement" of those items involves sufficient creativity to be considered an "original work…

> As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. That act of organization likely implies that the Java API (taken as a whole) constitutes a copyrightable work, even if the individual method signatures are not. The problem with this theory is that class a…

You’re misunderstanding your cookie analogy. You can’t copyright a single recipe that contains components of other recipes, but if you had written a book titled “My grandmas chocolate chip cookies from scratch”, where the first recipe is for homemade chocolate chips, the second is for how to grind your own flour for dough, and the third is for combining the previous two into a cookie, then yeah you can copyright that particular set of recipes. But someone else can use any one of your recipes independently without worrying about infringement.

Think of it like you put in the effort to curate a collection of recipes that work well together, and that curation is what’s copyrightable.

I don’t know what will happen with the law, and if APIs like this will be deemed a “curation”, but it makes a lot more sense to me from that perspective.

Ex.

Anyone can have a `Math.remainder` function, but the curation of an entire `Math` library might be copyrightable, since the effort was in collecting all of the correct things that work well together, even if they aren’t individually copyrightable.

A mega-recipe containing other recipes would be like making a `Math.AddAndThenMultiply`, which even if someone else had created the Add and Multiply methods, you aren’t stealing their API curation of methods, you’re just combining logic/algorithms (ingredients) from multiple methods (recipes) into a bigger method (mega-recipe).

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

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Oracle wins on copyright (I think it is almost impossible for Google to count to 5 on their merger doctrine argument) but I disagree that fair use is a long shot. The justices that brought up the case’s procedural history were all unanimously skeptical that the Federal Circuit correctly set aside the fair use verdict in favor of Google. I think the most likely outcome of this case (especial…

I agree. Personally, I espouse the "copyright should not exist at all" viewpoint. However, I think in the current legal framework, APIs are clearly copyrightable. However, re-implementing the APIs should obviously be allowed under fair use. Remember that copyright exists solely for the purposes of increasing the production of otherwise-easily-copyable works that take time to create but then are "worthless" (i.e. the…

> copyright should not exist at all

Copyright is not just about software.

Imagine a world in which you write a novel, let's call it Harry Potter, and publish it. And then I see people liking it, so I publish it too, but I can sell it cheaper because I don't have to recoup the costs of having written it.

Or imagine you write and record a song, let's call it Revolution. A shoe company can use that exact recording in an advertisement without paying you.

I respect the radicality of your position, but I hope you understand you are proposing to burn the creative arts to the ground.

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

#389
I'm curious if the Hush-A-Phone case is any precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-A-Phone_Corp._v._United_S... . It involved a company that made a device you connected to your telephone who got sued by AT&T and won. The compatibility with a proprietary phone network is vaguely analogous to an API.

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

#390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure- but then you have to be careful defining labels. Trying to peg a generic one dimensional (left-right) or even two dimensional (social/fiscal) political position on justices is difficult, even with loosely defined labels/ categories. It's much easier to look at justices relative position/ rank on a per-topic basis. Alternatively, and less useful to the general public, but very useful to SCOTUS junkies, is lookin…

And this is, in fact, precisely how the court is theoretically supposed to work. The two-dimensional partisan framing—which, unfortunately, is very real in other domains—is what's causing the court to break down.

Is the court breaking down?
Post reply on HN