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

381–390 of 965 posts

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

#381

Post by joshuamorton »

kaba0 wrote: post #303
mindcrime wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bad things would have happened? It would have become MUCH more dangerous to provide an alternate implementation of someone else's library or interface, which I believe would have have a profoundly negative effect on the entire software industry. As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws. Yes, but now there is a very strong precedent establishing the idea that copying those copyrighted API…

IANAL, but it was always true that fair use made code exempt from copyright. Wine is alive specifically because of that.

This case would have changed that has the rolling differed.

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

#382

Post by ocdtrekkie »

jayd16 wrote: post #348
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dissent clearly highlights the fallacy of the ruling, where it discussed the importance of the "heart" of the work, rather than the portion of exact lines copied. Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter.

>Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter. Would that be a copyright infringement? Probably just trademark infringement at that point?

It would be trademark infringement to use the names, it would be copyright infringement to use the meaningful content of the plot and story.

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

#383

Post by jameshart »

tantalor wrote: post #105
tantalor wrote: post #74

From the dissent: > The Copyright Act expressly protects computer code. It recognizes that a “computer program” is protected by copyright... And it defines “‘computer program’” as “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.” §101. That definition clearly covers declaring code—sets of statements that indirectly perform computer function…

This argument is hard to swallow: > declaring code would satisfy the general test for copyrightability.. they are expressed in “words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols It is common knowledge that mathematical formulae & equations, which are also expressed in words, numbers, and symbols, do not have copyright protection. > Copyright protection is therefore not available for... mathematical principles; for…

   public static int MaxNum (int x, int y, int z)
This is not a mathematical formula. It is a declaration of intent to name some code that takes three ints and returns an int 'MaxNum'. It says nothing about what the code can, should or must do.

Now, if you've come up with some novel way to perform some computation on three integers and produce an integer:

- you might be able to patent that procedure.

- you might write some code that performs that procedure, and you would hold a copyright over that specific set of code

- you might, I suppose, name your algorithm 'MaxNum' and declare a trademark over it

But I don't think any of those could prevent someone from writing

public static int MaxNum (int x, int y, int z)

in another codebase.

- your patent protection might limit their ability to make a substantially similar implementation of such a function

- your copyright protection might prevent them from literally copying your implementation word for word

- your trademark protection might prevent them from passing off their implementation of MaxNum as if it were yours

But in no way does this have anything to do with the uncopyrightability of mathematics.

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

#384

Post by asien »

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…

> Had the ruling gone in Oracle's favor I can imagine some greedy company trying to procedurally-generate every API and copyright them all

It would have officially mean businesses and the US governments are locked by vendors and have no right to copy API in order to provide compatibility towards other systems.

Making « VendorLocking » legally valid in favor of the vendor.

Not gonna lie I was scared by the outcome of that judgement and the catastrophic defense of Google.

I’m now relieved !

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

#385

Post by dpifke »

lostcolony wrote: post #243
VikingCoder wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

My understanding of strict textualists' arguments (especially Gorsuch), is that they view it as a separation of powers issue.

By only looking at the text of the statute, the Court—which consists of unelected officials with lifetime terms—is trying to limit its power. If the text is unclear, they feel it should fall on elected officials to clarify it.

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

#386

Post by kaba0 »

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?

Because it wasn’t GPLv2 at the time, and Sun explicitly disallowed mobile use?

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

#388

Post by UncleMeat »

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…

> Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation.

It is actually the opposite. Textualists say that intent doesn't mean squat. Originalists will consider intent. Textualists say that intent is unknowable and therefore you must exclusively use the text of the law, regardless of how stupid that might seem.

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

#389

Post by ocdtrekkie »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #359
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except that Google only copied the API, so how does that apply to anyone doing more than that? For that matter, how does that have anything to do with the GPL at all? If you distribute your software under a proprietary license instead, how does that affect whether anyone can reimplement your API? If somebody wants your implementation then they get it under your license. If all they want is their own implementation of…

From a statutory standpoint, there is no difference between the API and the code in general, which the dissenting opinion highlights. So if fair use is granted for theft of copylefted code in a non-copyleft manner, it doesn't matter heavily whether that was "declaring code" or "implementing code".

This ruling doesn't change that APIs are copyrightable code.

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

#390

Post by andrewnicolalde »

Finnucane wrote: post #107
curt15 wrote: post #25

"(e) The fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technological world." So the opinion effectively preserves the status quo in the software industry while sidestepping the question of API copyrightability.

Was the question of API copyrightability even raised before the court? I'd guess Google didn't think it was in their interest to go that far.

It was, but SCOTUS declined to rule on it.
Post reply on HN