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]

#41

Post by izacus » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #22

esarbe wrote: post #6

I'm so relieved. This could have forced such dramatic changes in how we develop software. And any other decision would have been a crippling blow to FLOS software. Now if we only could get the SC to invalidate software patents in general.

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.

Can you explain?

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

#42

Post by bxparks » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

politelemon wrote: post #15

tyingq wrote: post #5

The HN discussion from 2016 (Jury finds for Google): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11781053 From 2018 (Oracle revives matter via appeal): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16688521 Edit: Fixed, had written "Jury finds for Oracle", which was NOT what happened in 2016. Argh.

I'm unfamiliar with the legal system (judicial system?). I had thought that the jury's findings were final. Am I understanding correctly that the case still went to the Supreme Court of the US, and now that court finds in favor of Google. What happens after this, more appeals or is this like a proper static const readonly final?

I think the question about overturning the jury is directly addressed in the linked PDF, whose Syllabus is surprisingly easy to read:

> Re- viewing courts should appropriately defer to the jury’s findings of un- derlying facts, but the ultimate question whether those facts amount to a fair use is a legal question for judges to decide de novo. This approach does not violate the Seventh Amendment’s prohibition on courts reexamining facts tried by a jury, because the ultimate question here is one of law, not fact. The “right of trial by jury” does not include the right to have a jury resolve a fair use defense.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know exactly what this means, other than the SCOTUS saying that it can override the jury decision.

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

#43

Post by voxic11 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

politelemon wrote: post #15

tyingq wrote: post #5

The HN discussion from 2016 (Jury finds for Google): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11781053 From 2018 (Oracle revives matter via appeal): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16688521 Edit: Fixed, had written "Jury finds for Oracle", which was NOT what happened in 2016. Argh.

I'm unfamiliar with the legal system (judicial system?). I had thought that the jury's findings were final. Am I understanding correctly that the case still went to the Supreme Court of the US, and now that court finds in favor of Google. What happens after this, more appeals or is this like a proper static const readonly final?

The jury is final on questions of fact. On questions of law the appellate and supreme courts can overrule the trial court.

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

#44

Post by ethbr0 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

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…

"Held: Google’s copying of the Java SE API, which included only those lines of code that were needed to allow programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, was a fair use of that material as a matter of law."

If the un-italicized is the new test, that's probably the most reasonable thing I'm going to read this month. And it's only the 5th.

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

#45

Post by caf » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #5

The HN discussion from 2016 (Jury finds for Google): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11781053 From 2018 (Oracle revives matter via appeal): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16688521 Edit: Fixed, had written "Jury finds for Oracle", which was NOT what happened in 2016. Argh.

As both that thread title and the Supreme Court opinion say, the jury found in favour of Google.

They were then overruled by the Federal Court, which has now in turn been overruled by the Supremes.

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

#46

Post by BoorishBears » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #17

This appears to be the "money quote": We reach the conclusion that in this case, where Google reimplemented a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, Google’s copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use of that material as a matter of law. Also, while I hate to just repeat things that have already been said, I feel compelled t…

I'm glad for the verdict but this is such bullshit.

Google implemented exactly enough to create the illusion of letting people use their Java talents then dragged their feet with a half broken out-of-date language environment.

And they did all this to save money, not some sort of noble rebellion or clever hack.

> Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. Schmidt said Google would have paid for that license, but they were concerned that Sun had also requested some shared control of Android along with the fee.

A pittance for Google but that vague "some control" sounds really bad right? Well fortunately there's a history here and we know from past licensing deals (J++) this control is enforcing interoperability with other Java implementation. And of course Oracle spells that out pretty easily:

> Oracle states that Sun refused because Google’s intention was essentially to fork Java to a Google version of the language, and to prevent it being inter-operable with other versions, an idea which was “anathema” to the “write once run anywhere” basis of the language.

Google got a cheap license and the only stipulation was "don't fuck up the Java ecosystem by having your OS run Java-but-not-really" but that was too much for them and exactly what they ended up doing!

I don't know why people are acting like this is some victory of open source. Maybe a victory for open source, but championed by a greedy corporation that fragmented the Java ecosystem for years.

I wish Oracle could have taken another angle here, they deserved damages from Google for this. Google literally pulled a J++ and got away with it.

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

#47

Post by HumblyTossed » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

mycall wrote: post #18

> Computer programs differ to some extent from many other copyrightable works because computer programs always serve a functional purpose. So a computer program instructs processors to do things while books do not necessarily instruct neurons to do things. This seems like a leap. I could write a book with NOP for every word or I could write a program with NOP loops. Are these really instruction to do things? Like so,…

Yes a NOP is an instruction to do something. It tells the cpu to not change state for a period of time equal to how long it takes to execute the NOP.

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

#48

Post by jakewalker » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

jblz wrote: post #27

From the dissent: "In the 1990s, Oracle created a programming language called Java..." Sun Microsystems was acquired in 2010... I guess I should give Thomas the benefit of the doubt that he intended the statement to apply to Oracle's owned IP & not be a historical account of the language's creation and creators, but this rubbed me the wrong way.

He addresses this in footnote 1 on the same page, though. "A different company, Sun, created the library. But because Oracle later purchased Sun, for simplicity I refer to both companies as Oracle."

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

#49

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #20

mrkstu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. This case was an existential threat to multitudes of industries and the assumptions they were built on. The weird thing is it would of hurt Oracle as much as anyone. I have no clue how anyone w/any technical merit didn't understand that this was a footgun of the largest possible magnitude for them.

In my own mind, when CentOS died Oracle was saying you should move to "Oracle Unbreakable Linux"... which is a downstream clone of RHEL, just like CentOS was. Just one example of the hypocrisy.

[deleted]

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

#50

Post by quotemstr » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14

This is a pretty unfortunate ruling and I have some questions about the shoddy claims made in this document (the one suggesting Oracle benefitted from its platform being ripped off without license is particularly rich, especially considering it was the death warrant on Java as a mobile platform entirely, right before mobile became huge). But what can we expect from the fine folks behind Citizens United?

Upvoted because you shouldn't be downvoted into oblivion just for having an opinion contrary to the HN hivemind. It's okay to think Oracle should have won here. I disagree, but there are reasonable people on both sides.