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]

#441

Post by kristjansson » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:27 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #272

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…

Why do you think Breyer and the other assenting justices wouldn't be able to come to this kind of decision without a clerk taking the lead?

Acknowledgement of the actual process of drafting opinions like this?

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

#442

Post by rossdavidh » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

So not only a good decision, but one that was decided 6-2, with the younger judges (left and right) among those 6. It looks like it could be a solid majority on the side of sanity on this particular issue for a long time (knock on wood).

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

#443

Post by nickspag » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

benley wrote: post #352

franklampard wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but it’s okay to copy all the entry names in the encyclopedia and fill in the content yourself

This is an excellent metaphor but now I am curious, is it literally true?

Probably not? The crux of the opinion seems to grant fair use because it enabled a "new and transformative use," which is a box that a different line of encyclopedias doesn't seem to check.

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

#444

Post by kmeisthax » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

oconnor663 wrote: post #38

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…

Question from a layman: Does "interoperability" as a concept have any legal relevance here? Like focusing on programmer skills seems kind of beside the point, which is really for two pieces of software to be able to interoperate.

There's already Ninth Circuit precedent in favor of it. For example, Sony tried to sue two commercial PlayStation emulator developers and the Ninth rejected the lawsuit on all counts (and one of those cases is even cited in this opinion).

The court has to talk about programmer skills because Android (at least, the versions before they switched to OpenJDK) was not entirely source- or binary-compatible with Java SE programs. In fact, the reason why they couldn't license Java SE was that Sun insisted on Android being locked into compatibility in the first place. So this entirely represents an expansion of existing fair use precedent: now, not only does fair use apply to full reimplementations for the sake of interoperability, but also partial reimplementations made for the sake of programmer convenience.

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

#445

Post by mattkrause » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

LogicUpgrade wrote: post #404

wmichelin wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Bad analogy, architecture schematics are subject to copyright and you can't just take them and use them, either.

Not wholesale, anyway.

This decision suggests you could include say, the negative of the neighboring building’s facade so that the two “interoperate” in a sensible way.

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

#446

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #239

sriku wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it makes sense from the perspective of copyright law, which protects artifacts. After all, one could say the same for quoting from a famous literary work .."ha now they're valuing literature in terms of number of words of prose!"

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.

To use your Harry Potter comparison, it would be like asserting that Magic Boy Adventures violates Harry Potter's copyright because one of the characters in MBA was similar to the Neville Longbottom.

Or in other words, a tiny fraction of the original work would essentially be allowed to monopolize the entire space of works involving magical kids going to school.

(And this is why Justice Thomas is widely regarded as the least competent justice of at least the past half century.)

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

#447

Post by ant1oz » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

benley wrote: post #352

franklampard wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but it’s okay to copy all the entry names in the encyclopedia and fill in the content yourself

This is an excellent metaphor but now I am curious, is it literally true?

Yes.

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

#448

Post by ocdtrekkie » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #145

Spivak wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In thought Oracle should have won this case as well and the opinion basically affirmed the reasoning but went the other way. The basis for Oracle winning was that copying the Java API for interoperability with developers rather than for existing software was copying for Java’s beauty rather than being purely functional. Whenever this case came up on HN people outright refused to acknowledge that one’s intentions even…

> copying for Java’s beauty rather than being purely functional How would "beauty" be defined here. In the context of copyright, it would seem to apply to aesthetic beauty, but I'm not sure that applies to code (despite all sorts of engineers using the metaphor for theirs or others work).

I would imagine it would hinge on the simplicity/elegance of the organized structure of the APIs? We tend to prescribe the term beauty to language features that are easier to use and implement in a novel way compared to the languages that came before.

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

#449

Post by fauigerzigerk » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #316

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.

Justice Thomas clarifies why this case has wide-reaching impact in his dissent. "Congress rejected categorical distinctions between declaring and implementing code. But the majority creates just such a distinction. The result of this distorting analysis is an opinion that makes it difficult to imagine any circumstance in which declaring code will remain protected by copyright." I concur with Thomas (not in the connot…

I think Thomas makes a mistake in disregarding the reason for introducing the distinction between declaring and implementing code. The law (as I understand it - IANAL) doesn't exhaustively enumerate what does and does not constitute fair use. Therefore, any specific instance of fair use is bound to introduce new distinctions that are not specifically mentioned in the law itself.

In this particular case, Google's copying of interfaces was ruled to be fair use because its purpose was to allow Java developers to reuse their skills. This reasoning only holds for the declaring parts of the copyrighted work though. And that's why the distinction becomes necessary even if Congress rejects it as a primary distinction between copyrightable and non-copyrightable work.

That's also why I think the ruling is perhaps not quite as broadly applicable as some (including Thomas) are thinking right now. It may not cover code that isn't used by a significant number of developers. I haven't read the entire ruling, so I'm not sure whether it covers non-public interfaces that are nevertheless useful for interoperability. Such interfaces were at the center of past disputes (I think Microsoft's SMB protocol was one such case).

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

#450

Post by myself248 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:31 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.

But a photographer who travels to the beach and sets out a camera on a tripod to capture a timelapse of the sunset DOES have copyright over those photos.

What's the difference if they leave the camera there for longer? They still chose the placement and the angle and the lens. In either case, the camera's electronics are deciding the minutiae of the image acquisition.