Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 965 posts

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

#461

Post by qalmakka »

jahnu wrote: post #16
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.

At least in the US

Doesn't matter, as GDPR showed having something that's troublesome to sell or distribute in certain (critical) markets is a huge, massive roadblock for most companies. Software patents are worth s*t in the EU, but still we had to endure year of hassle when installing MP3s and such on Linux due to most distros having to also comply with the US market.

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

#462

Post by spacemanmatt »

shadowgovt wrote: post #300
dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad about this outcome, because I agree the other outcome would have had a devastating effect on software development. I also appreciate this fair use argument, especially when you point out the code in question was 0.4% of the entire API. Still, I'll always struggle with the idea that "the amount and substantiality of the portion used" when copying an interface is comparable to copying an implementation. The in…

I can recommend focusing on Justice Thomas' dissent, which contains a section related to this topic. I believe Justice Thomas agrees with your assessment, and he raises concern that the SCOTUS has essentially made APIs practically uncopyrightable (in that they will 100% of the time find that it's fair-use to use them). I actually disagree with him, but only in one sub-category: I think a SCOTUS ruling would be harder…

Justice Thomas wrote explicitly that he thought the majority blurred the lines between implementation and declaration.

I think he's wrong by virtue of some disability to follow the winning argument logically. Clarence is sheer idiot.

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

#463

Post by ocdtrekkie »

gamblor956 wrote: post #446
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Incorrect, because as Justice Thomas states, the "heart" of the work being copied is at issue, not a given percentage. Neville Longbottom is obviously not the "heart" of what a Harry Potter book is.

Presumably the issue would be if one wrote a book substantially about the same character as Harry Potter who went through the same plot events in significant detail, but only 0.4% of the sentences were identical and the main character's name was Barry.

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

#464

Post by coldtea »

luckylion wrote: post #137
thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #33

Had the ruling gone in Oracle's favor I can imagine some greedy company trying to procedurally-generate every API and copyright them all similar to this project which tried to copyright all musical melodies: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... In the case of the music project, it was for the protection of the community, but I can imagine such a system being used selfishly for software APIs…

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.

>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.

What would be the difference between a "generated text or melody" you present to copyright, to one you've written yourself?

What would be the mark of "automatic generation" that would be used to identify them as such and disqualify them?

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

#465

Post by coldtea »

CydeWeys wrote: post #173
thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see why not. Have you ever used code generation as part of software you have built? Is there any reason why generated code could not be copyrighted as part of a larger system? For example, suppose I define a data model for a public-facing API and then generate SDKs in various popular programming languages to interact with the public-facing API. If I were a major corporation that owned s…

> I am not a lawyer, but I don't see why not. The involvement of actual human creativity is required for a work to be copyrightable.

The generator has been run by someone.

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

#466

Post by joombaga »

shagie wrote: post #361
simonh wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't copyright a procedure or process, but you can copyright the text of the instructions for the procedure. That doesn't stop someone writing an original text of instructions for doing the same thing though. That's how come there are clones of Monopoly. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20311/horse-opoly

Board games are protected with patents. For example, with Khet ( https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/16991/khet-laser-game ) there is https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264242 which was upheld - https://www.generalpatent.com/professor-s-company-wins-1-6-m... The patent for Monopoly is https://patents.google.com/patent/US2026082A/en which expired in '52 There is also issues of trademark on the '-opoly' games... whic…

> Which is also why McDonalds did its Monopoly game in '87.

Are you saying McDonald's needed to wait for the trademark to expire? Or that they had to wait for a new trademark to be established? Wasn't the promotion collaborative?

Looking at McDonald's Monopoly commercials from 87 [1] and 88 [2], there's a Parker Brothers TM in both years.

[1] https://youtu.be/F737BVBKMCE?t=4

[2] https://youtu.be/KmV5O06McZk?t=14

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

#467

Post by qalmakka »

xforeigner wrote: post #157
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.

Good, now can we get a ruling that prevents Google, RedHat, Microsoft and others from wrecking FLOSS projects with their stifling influence? Or prevent them from eradicating competing or even original projects by doing hostile rewrites or forks?

Why would you prevent someone from writing whatever code they want, as long as it is FOSS? That's hypocritical, considering that doing whatever you want with the code is one of GNU's main tenets ("free as in freedom")

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

#468

Post by jpollock »

jkingsbery wrote: post #232

I 100% agree that this is the right outcome. Any other outcome would be a nightmare for software developers and would inhibit the development of products. But the dissent raises an interesting point. I think it shows how the crafting of legislation by people who are wholly ignorant of technology can create problems. While programmers recognize the difference between an API and it's implementation, Thomas makes the in…

Indirect is there to protect code that uses an API, not the API.

Since it's API's all the way down, this is needed to protect any application on top of the BIOS/OS/HAL.

Otherwise, very little would be protected by copyright.

However, it's entirely possible that "indirect" is a word with a definition that is different to our understanding in legal documents.

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

#469

Post by dang »

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?

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN.

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

#470

Post by monocasa »

adolph wrote: post #460
monocasa wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,_... .

I understand that. I'm saying that the same people that are patent trolls would add misuse of copyright to their set of tools if it became that became a viable option available to them. Today's patent trolls would just be called IP trolls, but they'd be the same set of people.
Post reply on HN