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

491–500 of 965 posts

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

#491

Post by max-ibel »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #413
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’s generally not trademark infringement to refer to the actual thing the trademark refers to (”nominative use”). This would actually be a claim unlikely to succeed unless you are intentionally claiming that are writing the true original Harry Potter stories.

Tell that to the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle estate :)

I don't know if their beef is with copyright vs trademark.

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

#492

Post by bcrosby95 »

ghaff wrote: post #238
GavinMcG wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it have been evaluated first? I understand the intuition you're getting at: logically, the first question could make the second irrelevant. But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question?

IANAL, but I can imagine something like the following: A. We decide this is fair use based on the small number of LOC used and call it a day B. OR we can decide that APIs are not copyrightable even though they're self-evidently creative works because of the importance of interoperability based on something something related to Borland v. Lotus, a case that we couldn't agree on the last time it came up. Hey folks. Let…

This is what the Supreme Court does in general. They decide on the narrowest of rulings possible.

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

#493

Post by hctaw »

Gh0stRAT wrote: post #406
ghaff wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but I can imagine something like the following: A. We decide this is fair use based on the small number of LOC used and call it a day B. OR we can decide that APIs are not copyrightable even though they're self-evidently creative works because of the importance of interoperability based on something something related to Borland v. Lotus, a case that we couldn't agree on the last time it came up. Hey folks. Let…

While I agree that APIs should not be copyrightable, the Supreme Court has been criticized for "legislating from the bench". Avoiding the temptation to set bigger and more far-reaching precedents than is strictly necessary for the case at hand avoids giving the impression that the judicial branch is doing the job of the legislative branch.

This is something I struggle with, personally.

I have fundamental problems with an unelected council that serves for life creating law.

However, we have an extremely inefficient form of Government that doesn't allow for quick adaptation, and legal questions will arise tomorrow that did not occur to legislators today. The courts are supposed to help resolve any ambiguity.

The question over whether or not APIs are copyrightable is, however, not a question of ambiguity. APIs are software (or documentation, or source code, etc), and any category you place them into is copyrightable under the current law. If we don't want APIs to be copyrightable, then they must have explicit exemptions carved out in the law. The courts are bound to consider an API as copyrighted right now, and the only question is whether violating that copyright is fair-use.

I think the Court did the right thing in skirting the question. That's up to legislators, the Court cannot help. We need fundamental reform of IP protections for software anyway.

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

#494

Post by bluedays »

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…

Thomas is almost always on the wrong side of history. If you want your API non copyrightable, don't make it public. Problem solved.

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

#495

Post by d3ntb3ev1l »

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…

So if Java had just bloated their code and those apis code footprint represented a larger % of the overall they’d be guilty? Or if Java trimmed a bunch of non essential packages into modules/extensions Google would be guilty

It seems to me the judge is saying, “the house was full of 10 tons of jewelry but the robbers only took 10 pounds so that isn’t really stealing lol “

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

#496

Post by spacemanmatt »

Gh0stRAT wrote: post #406
ghaff wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but I can imagine something like the following: A. We decide this is fair use based on the small number of LOC used and call it a day B. OR we can decide that APIs are not copyrightable even though they're self-evidently creative works because of the importance of interoperability based on something something related to Borland v. Lotus, a case that we couldn't agree on the last time it came up. Hey folks. Let…

While I agree that APIs should not be copyrightable, the Supreme Court has been criticized for "legislating from the bench". Avoiding the temptation to set bigger and more far-reaching precedents than is strictly necessary for the case at hand avoids giving the impression that the judicial branch is doing the job of the legislative branch.

AFAIK, the Court's overt mission is to interpret and regulate the intent of Congress. They literally must legislate from the bench where Congress has left them an obligation to do so. And Congress can legislate when they feel the Court has taken too much liberty with interpretation or regulation.

But I really do think this case falls squarely inside the parameters of "interpretation" as most members would see it.

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

#497

Post by sitkack »

jcranmer wrote: post #357
sriram_sun wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if it's your monkey (or program) that generated it (music or art or whatever) and the monkey can't talk, what's to prevent you from copyrighting it?

You can certainly try to copyright it, but if the person who slavishly copies the case can demonstrate that you didn't write it yourself, you lose the copyright protection because you're not the author. There are copyright cases which turn heavily on who the actual author of the work in question is--the Happy Birthday song being perhaps the most famous.

This whole thread could be true wrt the Monkey Selfies, but I am someone else's paid monkey and they can definitely copyright the work I do at work.

So does this case really boil down to the Monkey being free and not owned in that you can't take their copyright away, but you could if you owned the monkey?

I feel like the structure of our civilization is not stable, the focus and balance of capital power, the law and the ecological direction we are headed. I saw this play once and I didn't understand a bit of it.

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

#498

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

lillecarl wrote: post #257
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…

"Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not a market substitute for Java SE." Does this mean that companies copying the S3 API as a substitute for S3 are still untested territory?

Another way to read that would be that the S3 API isn't a substitute for S3, and so another company using the S3 API could be fine so long as they don't copy the code for S3 itself?

My impression is that this is probably nuanced enough we need to read past the syllabus if we wanted to really unpack the reasoning. I can't tell which is the key part from which to make an analogy.

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

#499

Post by gpm »

nikanj wrote: post #108
politelemon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Realistically, both Google and Oracle are 800lb gorillas and the battle will continue via lobbying legistlators, if not court appeals. It's very hard to believe Oracle would just keel over and give up.

Congress can't make retroactive laws, this case is basically done and Google won't have to pay for their use of Java that occured/occurs prior to the passing of a new law. Oracle doesn't have a vested interest in ruining copyright for everyone in the future if they can't get past damages out of it. That would hurt themselves as much as it would hurt everyone else.

I'm pretty confident that Oracle rolls over on this issue permanently.

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

#500

Post by [deleted] »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

It's interesting reading Thomas' dissent. As per typical Thomas appears to be arguing that it's the letter of the law that matters, whereas it's the majority opinion that the motivations and substance of the law are primary. Hackers and programmers tend to try and read the law like computer code to be "hacked" and exploited based on the letter of the law. So you'd expect us to be more sympathetic to Thomas' view. So…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN