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

581–590 of 965 posts

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

#581

Post by comex »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #422
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…

> Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment. Also known as compatibility and interoperability. I'm so happy to see that judges understand their importance.

> Also known as compatibility and interoperability.

Actually, not really. Both this ruling and the lower courts' rulings in the case operated under the strange assumption that Android was not interoperable with Oracle Java, leaving programmer familiarity as the only reason Google copied the APIs. For example, in the Federal Circuit ruling that the Supreme Court just overruled, they complain that Google "points to no Java apps that either pre-dated or post-dated Android that could run on the Android platform". True; but of course third-party libraries often can run on both Android and Oracle Java, and their importance seems to have been lost on everyone involved in the case... including Google's own lawyers.

Thankfully, Google won anyway, so any defendant in a future case who can make a better interoperability argument will be in an even stronger position.

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

#582

Post by esarbe »

jandrese wrote: post #571
burnte wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read Thomas' dissent, it'sabsolutely insane. He says how those 11k lines are basically 97.5% of Java's entire usefulness, and billions of dollars of value to Oracle from an Amazon deal. Absurdity.

Thomas lives in a weird alternative universe where logic works differently. His dissents are always a trip.

Yeah. He's got a strange mind.

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

#583

Post by sesuximo »

jhanschoo wrote: post #374
jxf wrote: post #70

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use: > To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on…

> That said, this case does establish a precedent that if your copying of an API is primarily for purposes of matching an interface so that developers can reimplement it, you're in fair use territory: >> Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment. It's even weaker than you think. It was im…

The dissent point out “non-competing” is a bit of a stretch as this affected contracts oracle had.

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

#584

Post by steveklabnik »

CydeWeys wrote: post #561
syshum wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

While true, it's not particularly relevant. When you acquire a company you're taking on its liabilities along with its assets.

There's a line in here that says "In the 1990s, Oracle created a programming language called Java." that is funny on its face, but is written this way for the exact reason you're talking about.

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

#585

Post by kmeisthax »

VikingCoder wrote: post #178
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…

No, when the code allows an exploit, that's a bug. Thomas is supposed to help us understand the intent of the code - what the Requirement was. Yes, it's better for us if the code reflects the intent perfectly. But to the degree that's not possible, we need someone to Interpret the code. Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. The Legislature should do a f…

>The Legislature should do a far better job making their intent clear.

That would require a wholesale redesign of creator's monopolies in software; CONTU basically said "oh yeah, judges can just use fair use to wriggle out of any market harms software copyright might cause" and Congress went with that.

Furthermore, Congress's actions over the past few decades have generally not squared with any sort of actual copyright reform. The last major actions I can think of were:

- Implementing the EU's reciprocal copyright extension so that Mickey Mouse could get more copyright protection in France (Sonny Bonno CTEA)

- Implementing an overbroad and policy-laundered set of protections for DRM that companies took to mean "all you have to do is put software in a thing and you can sue anyone for making parts for it" (DMCA 1201)

- Extending criminal copyright liability to filesharers (NET Act)

- Granting more copyright term extensions to old music recordings that weren't federally copyrighted until the 70s (CLASSICS Act/MMA)

The last thing I would ever want is to hear Congress's intent on any of these, as I would imagine it would sound something like "Fuck you, pay me". Australia, the EU, and the UK get a lot more shit these days for overbroad copyright laws, but this is mainly because doing so lets them rein in foreign tech companies. The US doesn't do that anymore because tech companies gained enough clout here to stop even more misguided copyright nonsense like SOPA/PIPA. However, with tech companies falling out of favor I wouldn't be surprised if Congress decides to start busting kneecaps again.

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

#586

Post by BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #217
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).

It's been going on since the 1960s (maybe longer). Personally, I think the best code is the code I don't write. A significant part of my refactoring, is removing as much code as possible, by tweaking algorithms, deriving common base classes, and removing unused code branches. Every line of code is a potential bug. The less code, the less bugs.

There's a number of times I added significant new function to programs while ripping out great gobs of code.

My favorite was replacing a function call with a single character constant.

Then there were two employers who demanded code proliferation (management incentives tied to KLOCs?). Didn't last long at either place.

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

#587

Post by rocqua »

Silhouette wrote: post #533
shadowgovt wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 creati…

> Yes, it is overriding copyright protection for a creative work that would otherwise apply. However, it does so because a greater good is served

One could argue that this is for the judicial branch, not the legislative branch, to decide.

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

#588

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

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…

[flagged]

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

#589

Post by supernova87a »

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #371
jmull wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think Breyer and the other assenting justices wouldn't be able to come to this kind of decision without a clerk taking the lead?

Thinly veiled ageism.

I think you might be surprised at how deftly Supreme Court justices are able to see through specific tech issues to identify the core dispute at hand and how decades-old laws and regulations should (or should not) apply.

If anything, they are even better with age at not getting confused by increasing technical detail of our API era, and making sure that the principles of law cut through that. (and how to structure a decision so it's clear to everyone)

If you relied on a tech-heavy decision to be made, this would not be a Supreme Court issue.

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

#590

Post by supernova87a »

gyc wrote: post #416
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…

> 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. Breyer also has a brother who was a District Court judge in the SF Bay Area who's undoubtedly had to deal with various tech cases. Not saying there's any kind of shared knowledge of tech within the Breyer family but just kind of interesting.

It is not publicized which of the Supreme Court clerks helped author an opinion, for definite reasons.

What you will likely see is in a couple years, one or two of the clerks start to appear as law professors or judges involved in such cases.

Post reply on HN