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

531–540 of 965 posts

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

#531

Post by comex »

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?

Theoretically, yes. But such companies would also have the ability to argue that their API was fully interoperable with S3, a factor counseling in favor of fair use. Google could have talked about interoperability in this case too, but for some reason didn't; see my other comment [1].

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26701488

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

#532

Post by shagie »

joombaga wrote: post #466
shagie wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Parker Brother's trademark they had to license... probably to get specific imagery. However, the suffix "-opoly" as it refers to games was lost.

McD's probably waited until the trademark on Monopoly was sufficiently weakened for them to go out, license the other parts of it (as it was Parker Brothers(TM).

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4803%3A...

In particular - https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:qp... is likely the one that they're referring to which covers the trademark on the board and game pieces - which is different than the game name.

Also note that many of those (now dead) trademarks were all filed in '85 - '87... after they lost the trademark in '83.

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

#533

Post by Silhouette »

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…

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).

That would seem a reasonable outcome, for much the same reason that copyright not protecting the appearance of fonts under US law is reasonable. Yes, it is overriding copyright protection for a creative work that would otherwise apply. However, it does so because a greater good is served, in this case by ensuring that interoperability cannot be encumbered, something which (as the majority opinion alludes) goes against the very purpose of copyright under US law.

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

#534

Post by danans »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #448
danans wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not sure that is the same use of the word "beauty" as used in copyrighted materials like books and art, since APIs are machine blueprints, whose primary and fundamental purpose is functional, not aesthetic.

Similarly, though a mechanical engineer might describe a particular gearbox design as beautiful doesn't make it copyrightable, since it's fundamental purpose is also not aesthetic.

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

#535

Post by TimTheTinker »

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…

> We need fundamental reform of IP protections for software anyway.

That really is the root issue here. So many problems we're seeing (Pai's clownshow in the FCC, SCOTUS legislating from the bench, federal agencies trampling citizens' rights, etc.) stem from the legislative branch abdicating their authority to third parties -- the librarian of Congress, the FCC, SCOTUS, and even (by legal reference) professional organizations and laws in other countries. It's ridiculous.

A first principle of a democratic government is that citizens can soon fire someone whose legislation and/or executive decision they do not like. We would all have voted Pai out if we could have... but he shouldn't have had the power to do what he did in the first place (remove network neutrality rules). Congress gave him that power - which I would argue was an abdication of authority vested in them.

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

#536

Post by shimonabi »

CodeArtisan wrote: post #501
EvanAnderson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now? I've personally heard quantities of code measured in "lines of code" (or, thousands of lines of code-- "K-LOCs") going back to the mid-90's. An acquaintance who worked for IBM in the 70's said it dates back at least that far (measuring developer productivity in the "K-LOCs" they produce).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqFYsvxHZOs&t=1205s (start at 20:05 if timestamp fails).

This Ballmer clip is the first thing I think about when I hear K-LOC.

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

#537

Post by luckylion »

coldtea wrote: post #464
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.

> 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?

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

None, but you wouldn't get copyright, much like you can present the works of others as your own but won't actually get the copyright if you're not the creator.

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

#538

Post by gpm »

shadowgovt wrote: post #487
gpm wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not say that APIs were copyrightable, they said that if "we assume, for argument's sake, that [APIs are] copyrightable, [...] the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use". From page 1 of the opinion, i.e. the actual ruling, which follows the "syllabus" in the pdf. The syllabus is basically just a summary. It's page 5 of the pdf.

I see; the difference is SCOTUS vs. circuit court of appeals precedent. I was referring to the decision of May 9, 2014 that overrulled the Alsup court assertion that APIs are not subject to copyright. But that decision was not from SCOTUS but from the appeals court for the circuit. Current status, if I understand correctly, is that SCOTUS has not weighed in on whether APIs may be subject to copyright, and precedent i…

I don't think federal circuit rulings on non patent matter are binding precedent anywhere? I could be wrong about that. I certainly doubt there binding precedent on just one federal district (and not either all the district courts in the relevant circuit, or all district courts period).

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

#539

Post by xxpor »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #438
jaywalk wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this wasn't fair use, nothing of any substantial value could be considered fair use.

The dissent explains how Android fails three of the four fair use tests. I'm not sure what the majority was smoking when they wrote this, but far better examples of fair use exist, especially uses that are noncommercial and especially are noncompetitive with the original. Java was a mobile OS before Android literally obliterated the market after copying Java. Arguably, if Android was fair use, everything is fair use…

The dissent is a bunch of garbage written by someone who clearly doesn't understand anything about what he's talking about.

He complains about the names of functions being "expressive content". Yeah, "max" and "toIndex" are real expressive.

Also, what the hell is this logic?

https://twitter.com/KardOnIce/status/1379080086880665606/pho...

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

#540

Post by [deleted] »

marc__1 wrote: post #333

Oracle's response[1]: "The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater — the barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower. They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can. This behavior is exactly why regulatory authorities around the world and in the United States are examining Google's business practices." - Dorian Daley, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN