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]

#451

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:32 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…

> 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.

Ethics aside, as a viewer, it'd be kind of cool if this were a thing. Small-time movie makers might like it too.

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

#452

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #396

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.

This stuff is very nuanced, especially when the stakes are high.

SCOTUS rules on the legal and fundamental matter, not the subject. So if the attorneys for one side or the other are able to manipulate the judge into making a weak ruling (even one not in their favor), the appeals courts rulings will be impacted. In this case, the trial judge went above and beyond to avoid that kind of bullshit.

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

#453

Post by gpm » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

jpdb wrote: post #249

jcranmer wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Oracle is now copying AWS's API to try to enter the cloud market. (This was explicitly brought up in one of the amici briefs).

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.

IIRC the API is probably licensed under the Apache license (by virtue of client libraries being licensed, not intentionally) but Oracle isn't complying with the requirements of the license, so that would have been more or less irrelevant.

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

#454

Post by shmageggy » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:33 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?

Two distinctions come to mind: the encyclopedia text doesn't have a "functional purpose" in the same way as the implementation of an API does, and thus there isn't a market of users who have pre-existing skills with encyclopedia entries that they could put to use if the entries were copied to another platform. In my non-lawyerly reading of the first bit of the decision it seemed they leaned on those aspects quite a bit.

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

#455

Post by adolph » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:33 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.

To be pedantic, this part of the case is about copyright law, not patent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....

The first phase of the case lasted from 2010 to 2015. Oracle successfully established that APIs are copyrightable, but their claims of patent infringement were rejected. Google petitioned the Supreme Court in October 2014 to review the case, but this was denied. A second petition by Google in January 2019 included the judgement that APIs are copyrightable. The Supreme Court agreed to review this part of the judgment in November 2019.

To the degree that SCOTUS has found that an API can be copyrighted, there is still room for copyright trolls to operate.

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

#456

Post by TheRealDunkirk » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #267

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #126

For better or worse, the same arguments ( "API is copyrightable" ) is what was used in the past to prevent 98's Microsoft from doing embrace-extend-extinguish to Java with their "JavaVM with P/Invoke'd Win32 API". The idea in that case was that when you try to implement something identical to the Java language and standard library, it doesn't matter if you call it Java or "Visual J++"; you are still implementing Java…

I led the development of a large GUI app using J++ in the late 90s. This fear you describe is unwarranted. It's worth pointing out that the list of examples of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" on the wikipedia page of that name [1] contains zero actual successful examples of it working. Perhaps you have noticed that you aren't reading this page in an ActiveX control. This is a boogeyman. Don't be afraid of it. [1]: http…

> the wikipedia page of that name [1] contains zero actual successful examples of it working.

I will also point out that this page does not contain the letters "Novell" anywhere within it.

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

#457

Post by unionpivo » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

LogicUpgrade wrote: post #408

rhodozelia wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many lines is a script? Is it more than the 11500 lines Google copied? It's actually way less. And it's literally word for word. Can we be intellectually honest and not lie about the vast amount of work being copied here?

yes and most of the api is similar or copied from programming languages that came before java.

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

#458

Post by decker » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:35 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 missed the rationale for fair use.

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

#459

Post by mayank » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:35 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…

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

It’d sure have made the practice of taking someone else’s API and re-implementing the innards a lot more interesting:

https://docs.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3co...

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

#460

Post by adolph » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #293

pwg wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/patent trolls/copyright trolls/ This case involved copyright, not patents. Copyrights are separate from patents.

I agree with the parent. Patent trolls aren't tied to patents because of some love for patents specifically, but because the legal structure allows for the most misuse. They would gladly add another tool to their belt given the chance, as we saw from this case with most of the bad copyright opinions coming from the CAFC, ie. the patent appeals court that's currently stuffed with IP maximalists.

Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement. Today's decision has to do with the fair use defence in the copyright portion of the lawsuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....