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

521–530 of 965 posts

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

#521

Post by my123 »

amelius wrote: post #490
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't celebrate a victory yet. As is often the case, the court's choice of tests simply will serve as a blueprint for others on how to avoid themselves being caught in the same kind of result. Based on this court decision, it's apparently fair use to lift someone else's API and use it to jumpstart programmer familiarity with your product, if the author of the API previously tried to achieve success in that narro…

> IP holder companies will become even more common: they will be used to hold copyright to one API and license it out to customers Not after this precedent, which says that APIs are free. What will happen: Intel licensing the i86 instruction set will not be possible from now on, same for ARM.

Those are protected by patents, not copyrights.

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

#522

Post by jcranmer »

sitkack wrote: post #497
jcranmer wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

That is "work for hire." You are the creative author of the code, but since your creativity is being applied at the direction of another, it is that person who owns the copyright instead of you. The Copyright Office has a document to explain how to decide whether or not your work is a "work for hire."

As applied to monkey selfies, it's possible that the human photographer who set the situation up owns the copyright instead, but this wasn't argued in court.

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

#523

Post by paulmd »

Hopefully this is a crack in the armor of the x86 monopoly - after all what is an instruction set but an "API for processors"? The novelty is in how you implement the instruction set, not the actual API that says "this instruction takes A and adds it to B", that is purely a matter of compatibility.

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

#524

Post by monocasa »

jimbob45 wrote: post #294

Does this mean Fuchsia/Zircon are effectively dead? I got the impression Google was keeping them as a backup in case this lawsuit went badly for them.

Android has already switched to GPLed OpenJDK for the Java classes in question. This was about the Android versions from before that switch over.

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

#525

Post by daniel-thompson »

d3ntb3ev1l wrote: post #495
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 “

> So if Java had just bloated their code and those apis code footprint represented a larger % of the overall they’d be guilty?

Under the fair use doctrine, maybe. Fair use in the US is literally about being able to use "limited" parts of a copyrighted work without getting permission from the copyright holder. What is "limited"? It depends, but 0.4% could reasonably be called limited.

> 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 “

Copyright and fair use apply to the creative substance of the work (in your example, the design on the jewelry, perhaps), not to physical instances of it (the actual pieces of jewelry in the house).

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

#526

Post by dang »

quotemstr wrote: post #50
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14

This is a pretty unfortunate ruling and I have some questions about the shoddy claims made in this document (the one suggesting Oracle benefitted from its platform being ripped off without license is particularly rich, especially considering it was the death warrant on Java as a mobile platform entirely, right before mobile became huge). But what can we expect from the fine folks behind Citizens United?

Upvoted because you shouldn't be downvoted into oblivion just for having an opinion contrary to the HN hivemind. It's okay to think Oracle should have won here. I disagree, but there are reasonable people on both sides.

The GP post seemed to start with some interesting information but then instead of adding enough substance to become a good comment, it petered out—and then it went straight to flamebait. It's correct to downvote flamebait.

Contrary opinions are welcome but need to come with substantive information. Contrarian comments that just go "nyah nyah nyah" at the majority end up having the same effects as outright trolling. It's tempting to do that, because it's frustrating to be surrounded by opponents (which is what holding a minority view on the internet feels like). It's part of maturing as a commenter to resist the urge to lash out in such situations—which is in your interests not to do, since it only discredits the minority truth even further.

Past explanations about this:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

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

#527

Post by EgoIncarnate »

amelius wrote: post #490
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't celebrate a victory yet. As is often the case, the court's choice of tests simply will serve as a blueprint for others on how to avoid themselves being caught in the same kind of result. Based on this court decision, it's apparently fair use to lift someone else's API and use it to jumpstart programmer familiarity with your product, if the author of the API previously tried to achieve success in that narro…

> IP holder companies will become even more common: they will be used to hold copyright to one API and license it out to customers Not after this precedent, which says that APIs are free. What will happen: Intel licensing the i86 instruction set will not be possible from now on, same for ARM.

This ruling doesn't really change anything with respect to CPU instructions. The fair use defense doesn't cover patents.

Patents are what are generally what is used by Intel, etc to protect (and license) new CPU instructions and provide protection for novel ideas/inventions for up to 20 years.

Copyright generally protects specific expressions/implementations of an idea and last up to 95 years for corporate patents, or 70 years + the lifetime of the author for individual patents.

For completeness there is also trademarks which cover names and logos which can last indefinitely, as long as they are in commercial use.

The text of a CPU instruction specification would be covered by copyright, the algorithm for implementing the instruction by a patent, and the branding (ex: MMX) by trademark.

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

#528

Post by 1-6 »

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…

I don't want to speculate but Microsoft's embrace of Linux and Github has been frightening to me.

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

#529

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #223
javajosh wrote: post #40

Does anyone have a good estimate of what this case cost Oracle and Google, especially in terms of legal fees, and where that money went ultimately?

I don't know, but it was money well spent and we should thank them for causing this important point of law to be clarified.

It was money well spent for Google. For Oracle, it was money thrown away for nothing but bad PR.

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

#530

Post by sprayk »

hctaw wrote: post #493
Gh0stRAT wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 copy…

Slow legislation is a feature rather than a bug. Less opportunity for reactionary laws based on emotion or a collective misunderstanding of events that we later regret. It's not a perfect deterrent, obviously, e.g. the Patriot Act
Post reply on HN