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

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

syshum wrote: post #428

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…

if I remember my history correctly Google did not, Android was purchased by Google by that time the choice to use Java SE as the API was already made

Post by spacemanmatt » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #478

spacemanmatt wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please make your substantive points without calling names. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post by nullifidian » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

Frost1x wrote: post #431

nullifidian wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative take, which I'm sure won't be popular, is that now, with an interpretation taken to the extreme, a megаcorporation can basically steal your (let's say a small startup's) platform (in case you refuse to sell it for ethical or some other reasons), by re-implementing it and investing much more resources which you don't have, to make it more attractive to customers. I'm ok with either decision, but, depend…

I think that's always been a threat. If a large business decides to target an area you develop a system for, you're basically out of luck unless you have some novel IP that's difficult to replicate. You really have to have something niche, patent it, etc. otherwise you just roll the dice that massive entity X doesn't steamroll your livelihood out of business.

Post by burnte » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

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…

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

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.