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]

#431

Post by Frost1x » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

nullifidian wrote: post #407

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…

An alternative take, which I'm sure won't be popular, is that now, with an interpretation taken to the extreme, a megаcorporation can basically steal your (let's say a small startup's) platform (in case you refuse to sell it for ethical or some other reasons), by re-implementing it and investing much more resources which you don't have, to make it more attractive to customers. I'm ok with either decision, but, depend…

I think that's always been a threat. If a large business decides to target an area you develop a system for, you're basically out of luck unless you have some novel IP that's difficult to replicate. You really have to have something niche, patent it, etc. otherwise you just roll the dice that massive entity X doesn't steamroll your livelihood out of business.

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

#432

Post by nickbauman » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:23 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 think you're also ignoring the "transformative" clause written into the fair use doctrine in the US.

...the extent to which the use is transformative. In the 1994 decision Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc,[13] the U.S. Supreme Court held that when the purpose of the use is transformative ... is more likely to favor fair use.

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

#433

Post by dlubarov » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

BoorishBears wrote: post #46

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 tha…

Can you be more specific about the differences your talking about? As far as I'm aware, Google never added their own features to the language itself. Granted, they were a bit slow to support new versions like Java 8. They also chose not to support libraries like awt, but I wouldn't consider those part of the Java language; rather they're part of Java SE.

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

#434

Post by tantalor » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

marcodiego wrote: post #280

tantalor wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, this is math; it is not copyrightable. It would have made perfect sense to Euclid. Some computers can understand this and execute it as if it were computer code. That's amazing! Kudos to those compute language designers and compiler authors. But their ingenuity does not suddenly grant copyright protection to anything their clever compilers can now understand.

Any computable function can be written the way I wrote the function that is equivalent to Euclid's algorithm. Does it means no computable function is copyright-able or not copyright-able if written that way?

The law says nothing about computability (nice straw man) but it does say ideas and math are not protected whereas code is. My point is the API declarations at the heart of this case are not protected by law because they are examples of the former. Like a formula, they are ideas that describe what to do, but not exactly how to do it.

If you code GCD in a low-level computer programming language then of course you can claim a copyright on that code, but nobody owns the idea of the Euclidean algorithm.

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

#435

Post by mattkrause » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #382

jayd16 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Not sure that’s correct.

Copyright attaches to the actual text (illustrations, etc; whatever is “fixed in a tangible form”), not the ideas.

You could write a story about a boy of humble origins who is whisked off to a special school, discovers he’s special, and fights evil. There aren’t that many original plots, after all....

You’ll only get into trouble if the main character is called Harry Potter of 10 Privett Drive, where he resides with his mother’s sister and her awful family, and he later attends Hogwarts, etc.

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

#436

Post by scriptproof » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

marc__1 wrote: post #333

Oracle's response[1]: "The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater — the barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower. They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can. This behavior is exactly why regulatory authorities around the world and in the United States are examining Google's business practices." - Dorian Daley, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,…

The alternative would have been not using Java at all. That would have made attracting programmers more difficult at the beginning of the Android platform, but then, Java would have disappeared on mobiles, at least. I do not discuss why Oracle thinks is entitled to have of big chunk of the revenues of Android and the work of Google.

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

#437

Post by lostcolony » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

dpifke wrote: post #385

lostcolony wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Certainly, but there's a problem with that. Because an outcome will still happen; an outcome determined by the law, -and its interpretation-. Even an interpretation of "we should (overturn lower court's decision/uphold lower court's decision) because the law is unclear" is an interpretation of the law.

After all, it is as equally fair to say "The wording of this law leads us to a clear understanding of the intent to mean X, and if the legislative body feels that to be in error they should pass new legislation to clarify it" as it is to say "The wording of this law leads us to an unclear understanding, and irrespective of intent we will decide !X until the legislative body passes new legislation to clarify it".

While the non-textualists may be explicit in trying to understand the intent of a law in accordance with their own biases, the textualists are still interpreting the law according to their own biases. There have even been some...really interesting cases of logic to try and do so (i.e., earlier generations' understanding of 'sex' matters when interpreting anti-discrimination statutes, but earlier generations' understanding of 'gun' does not matter when interpreting the 2nd amendment). It's incredibly rare (pretty much unheard of in the case of a few of them) for them to decide against their own predictable biases because a law is ambiguous, or a situation is novel.

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

#438

Post by ocdtrekkie » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #191

kaba0 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It wasn’t about whether APIs are under copyright (they are), but whether this particular case constitutes fair use. I think the effect of this decision was way overblown.

If this wasn't fair use, nothing of any substantial value could be considered fair use.

The dissent explains how Android fails three of the four fair use tests. I'm not sure what the majority was smoking when they wrote this, but far better examples of fair use exist, especially uses that are noncommercial and especially are noncompetitive with the original.

Java was a mobile OS before Android literally obliterated the market after copying Java. Arguably, if Android was fair use, everything is fair use and all software copyright is fundamentally defeated by this ruling.

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

#439

Post by topicseed » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

LogicUpgrade wrote: post #399

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 transf…

Is a restaurant menu copyrightable?

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

#440

Post by game_the0ry » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

6-2 majority decision, which is pretty one-sided and really good news for open source.

It's worth noting - the two dissenting justices were Clarence and Alito, who are both baby boomers over the age of 70, both old school conservatives. Of other two conservative justices, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch (who are also on the early end of Gen X), both sided with Google.[1] I was not expecting that. I thought they would have aggressive views with respect to the possibility of copyright infringement.

Funny moment during the case - Clarence compared Google copying Oracle to a football team stealing an opponent's playbook. That's a really bad analogy and demonstrates a lack of understanding in open source software.

Oh, and before I forget - f*ck you, Larry Ellison.

[1] Justice Barrett came in too late to participate in the decision, I wonder where she would have sided.