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]

#551

Post by xxpor » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

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,…

Oracle is very clearly banking on their political ties with the GOP to save the company. Regulatory capture in its most disgusting form.

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

#552

Post by xxpor » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

caf wrote: post #45

tyingq wrote: post #5

The HN discussion from 2016 (Jury finds for Google): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11781053 From 2018 (Oracle revives matter via appeal): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16688521 Edit: Fixed, had written "Jury finds for Oracle", which was NOT what happened in 2016. Argh.

As both that thread title and the Supreme Court opinion say, the jury found in favour of Google. They were then overruled by the Federal Court, which has now in turn been overruled by the Supremes.

Federal Circuit, not Federal Court, just to clarify.

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

#553

Post by bitwize » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

mjw1007 wrote: post #307

The bits where they emphasise that the copying was "transformative" as part of the "Purpose and Character of the Use" analysis are interesting: « 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 was to create a different task…

> This suggests to me that someone who copies a set of function declarations for the purposes of, say, creating a free-software clone of an existing product might not be able to rely on this decision.

They wouldn't need to rely on this decision.

The courts tend to frown on using IP law as a weapon against interoperability or legitimate competition outside the scope of what the IP law covers. If you get sued for copying Yoyodyne's API in order to develop an otherwise original piece of software whose purpose is to interact with other software that expects Yoyodyne's program, the appeals court is likely to smack the suit down citing Sega v. Accolade and Sony v. Connectix, and the SCOTUS (assuming it gets that far) is likely to agree.

One of Oracle's major arguments was that Android was not interoperable with regular Java, and in Oracle's position the fact that Google copied Java's declaring code just to screw Oracle over put Android outside the bounds of interoperability fair-use protection.

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

#554

Post by jariel » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

Now Google, Microsoft and Oracle can go ahead and copy little startup's APIs, or even Stripe?

Using Stripe?

You're literally one-click away from our new Google Payments?

Just change this URL, and you're good?

I'm not as keen about the outcome as others.

It's good for open source in a way but I'm wary of big cos just wiping out smaller one's.

Also - does anyone with insight have something to say about open source APIs being copied, to get around copyleft?

Could GPL'd software now be 're-implemented' without concern?

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

#555

Post by xxpor » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #523

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.

Who would willingly make a new x86 design these days?

I would think this would crack ARM's control over their instruction set though. I can't imagine it'd be worth re-implementing literally the entire thing from scratch though when ARM will willingly sell you IP blocks, as opposed to Intel or ARM which will certainly not.

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

#556

Post by chasil » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

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…

Had Justice Thomas' opinion prevailed, most everything within POSIX was originally copyright by AT&T USL as part of System V, and would be owned by the current holders of that intellectual property.

Anyone using fork(), stat(), open(), or other basic parts of the UNIX development environment would be in violation.

Those copyrights were purchased by Novell at some point, and I believe ended up with Attachmate.

One would think that the C Programming Language is also covered by copyright via the K&R books, which would put anyone using printf() in the same position.

That is truly a nightmare scenario.

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

#557

Post by esarbe » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #389

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that Google only copied the API, so how does that apply to anyone doing more than that? For that matter, how does that have anything to do with the GPL at all? If you distribute your software under a proprietary license instead, how does that affect whether anyone can reimplement your API? If somebody wants your implementation then they get it under your license. If all they want is their own implementation of…

From a statutory standpoint, there is no difference between the API and the code in general, which the dissenting opinion highlights. So if fair use is granted for theft of copylefted code in a non-copyleft manner, it doesn't matter heavily whether that was "declaring code" or "implementing code". This ruling doesn't change that APIs are copyrightable code.

The dissenting opinion is stupid. Thomas may be a bad justice, but he has even less of a clue about software devolopment. Of course there is a difference between an API and the code in general.

This decision sidestepped the question of whether APIs are copyrightable or not by declaring that this particular instance was fair use.

Reimplementing interfaces has always been fair-use, they are definitions. Re-Implementation of these interfaces has been a cornerstone of FOSS since its very beginning.

> So if fair use is granted for theft of copylefted code in a non-copyleft manner, it doesn't matter heavily whether that was "declaring code" or "implementing code".

I don't think these words mean what you think they mean. There was no theft and of course there is a difference between declaring code and implementing code.

Shesh...

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

#558

Post by curt15 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #337

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, it's the sort of ruling that could make companies less skittish about using GPL software.

Solely because the GPL may now be so weak nobody is worried about enforcement. If Google can so blatantly create a monopoly scale business by ripping off something instead of complying with the license or licensing it separately, there is no teeth to the GPL at all, and releasing your business' code under GPL is an existential risk. They might use the GPL software, but feel no compunction to either open source their…

GNU/Linux owes its very existence to the practice of reimplementing interfaces that this ruling now codifies.

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

#559

Post by asgeir » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

distribot wrote: post #301

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…

I just took a look at the rangeCheck: https://majadhondt.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/googles-9-lines/ Is this example correct? Can someone explain to me how this: if (toIndex > arrayLen) is correct? If the array length is say 5, and toIndex is 5, that should still throw an index out of bounds exception, right? But it would be acceptable here.

This is correct for a half-closed interval https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Half-ClosedInterval.html

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

#560

Post by comex » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

spullara wrote: post #473

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…

How much precedence does this carry for other cases or does each instance of "fair use" need to be evaluated by the Supreme Court before we know if it was legal?

Precedent works by analogy. What matters is not just the outcome of a particular case, but the reasoning. When similar legal questions come up in future cases, lower courts are required to cite this case and follow the same reasoning, to the extent the reasoning applies to the facts of that case. Of course, no two cases have exactly the same facts, and different facts may produce a different outcome. But if a future case is similar enough to this one, the lower court will be expected to compare the two cases and explain why the differences in facts justify a different outcome.

No legal question is resolved for sure until it reaches the Supreme Court, but most cases never make it there, instead being resolved by lower courts applying higher courts' precedents.