Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by LogicUpgrade » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

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…

> "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 one small part of the considerably greater whole. As part of an interface, the copied lines of code are inextricably bound to other lines of code that are accessed by programmers. 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."

> Sanity prevailed! This judgment could have had devastating consequences and turned software development into a copyright nightmare.

This judgment is the equivalent of someone taking a movie script, shooting a new movie out of it without changing a word, and the court declaring this "fair use" of the script.

Software development wouldn't have turned into a nightmare unless you decide to steal a platform. Which most people don't need to do in order to do their work.

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

#392

Post by dehrmann » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

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.

I assume this means that Amazon can ignore the Elastic and Mongo licenses when building compatible implementations?

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

#393

Post by isignal » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

flyingfences wrote: post #260

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…

> Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. I would say that they are not so much trying to ignore the fact as acknowledging the fact but taking the position that it the court's role to interpret the implementation, not to guess at the intent.

And to complete their viewpoint, it is the legislature’s job to patch “exploits” by rewriting the code (laws).

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

#394

Post by salawat » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

daniellarusso wrote: post #340

luckylion wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The human still made the decision to place the camera just so. You're not travelling through enough layers of intentionality.

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

#395

Post by ocdtrekkie » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #341

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google had the option to use the OpenJDK and make Android a GPL-based platform. They did not want to. They could've, and tried to, negotiate a separate license, but simply decided to copy what they wanted instead, relying on their legal team to protect them.

I'm confused how not using the GPL version makes this relevant to the GPL.

Dual licensing is a common reason to GPL your code: Letting people have and use the source under restricted terms, and paying for an enterprise license otherwise.

If Google can steal the code from the GPL version and then just not obey the license or pay for an enterprise license, dual licensing is dead and no business will open source their code under a dual licensing model.

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

#396

Post by mlindner » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

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…

That judge had no part of this decision though.

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

#397

Post by paulmd » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #306

InsaneOstrich wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He probably owns a bunch of Oracle stock

Justices routinely recuse themselves if they own stock in a company arguing before the court.

Thomas didn't recuse himself when ruling on court cases filed by the advocacy group his wife is a leader of. It's all voluntary, if a Supreme Court justice chooses not to recuse themselves there is no higher court to force them.

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

#398

Post by rhodozelia » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

LogicUpgrade wrote: post #391

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…

> "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…

Maybe it is the same as using a similar plot, but with 0.4% of code lines being the same I think the analogy doesn’t carry through to using a script word for word.

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

#399

Post by LogicUpgrade » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

Honestly this stands contrary to almost every principle of fair use (transformative work of different character for the purpose of comment, parody etc.).

Google took tons of APIs from a platform and implemented them into... a platform.

If you think designing thousands of classes is not substantial that's a very different argument, different from fair use.

Fair use means yes, APIs are copyrightable, but this is transformative use. And, to anyone with a clue in software dev... no it's not.

It's basically like taking someone else's script as-is and shooting a movie from it, and the court deeming this use of a script "fair use".

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

#400

Post by wmichelin » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

LogicUpgrade wrote: post #391

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…

> "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…

I don't think it's fair to compare a programming interface, which is more analogous to designing something like the plumbing architecture for a house, to a movie script, which is art. Yes, a well-written API can be considered art, but with the plumbing analogy, a "copy-cat" would just be making sure the same pipes are connected to the toilets in the same positions. What's going on under behind the dry-wall wouldn't matter.

Movie scripts and APIs aren't really comparable as you have presented them.