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]

#591

Post by Phrodo_00 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

mattkrause wrote: post #435

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be trademark infringement to use the names, it would be copyright infringement to use the meaningful content of the plot and story.

Not sure that’s correct. Copyright attaches to the actual text (illustrations, etc; whatever is “fixed in a tangible form”), not the ideas. You could write a story about a boy of humble origins who is whisked off to a special school, discovers he’s special, and fights evil. There aren’t that many original plots, after all.... You’ll only get into trouble if the main character is called Harry Potter of 10 Privett Driv…

While true, there's been (imo wrong, as it breaks the Idea–expression dichotomy) expansion of copyright to things like characters[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...

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

#592

Post by chelical » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

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…

There is a massive difference in interpreting law vs code. Code can be patched immediately. New laws or changes to an existing law can take months, even years or decades to pass.

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

#593

Post by CapitalistCartr » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #587

Silhouette wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The judicial branch did decide this.

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

#594

Post by bostonsre » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

Does oracle have any moves left to counter this decision? Or are we finally clear of this litigation that has been hanging over us for so long?

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

#595

Post by garaetjjte » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:52 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.

Does anybody claim copyright for ISA though? I think it is just patent minefield.

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

#596

Post by supernova87a » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

jsjsbdkj wrote: post #176

abhv wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UPDATE: based on Wikipedia [1], the "API" was likely saved by one of these people (all likely in their mid-20s!): Emily Barnet, 2020, Yale (2015) Diana Li Kim, 2020, Yale (2017) Arjun Ramamurti, 2020, Yale (2018) Daniel Richardson, 2020, Virginia (2018) Brittany Jones-Record, 2020, Stanford (2016) David Scott Louk, 2020, Yale (2015) Elizabeth B. Deutsch, 2021, Yale (2016) Joel F. Wacks, 2021, Chicago (2018) [1] https…

A supreme court clerkship is very impressive, but "saved by one of these people" is strong. My understanding is the justices have a conference, stake out their positions, and then the chief assigns cases based on who can attract a majority to their opinion. So Breyer presumably had a rationale that could get at least 4 concurrences in conference. It's possible for the other justices to later change their minds based…

While the Supreme Court justice authoring the opinion will have laid out the broad principles and legal framework upon which he/she wishes to make the decision, the law clerks have a central role in crafting the opinion and making sure that the arguments and reasoning are sound.

By the very nature of the court's operations, the justices cannot be writing the 30 page opinion and doing all the research on every case. The clerks are the ones who will be writing most of the summary, determining how certain cases influence the current case, and laying out the draft logic. They'll have many sessions with the justice to test the logic and find edge cases, implications, and make sure that a decision affecting millions of people is sound. Basically debate and draft/redraft the opinion (with other justices + clerks as well) based on what they're finding as the drafting continues.

I would say the clerks are indispensable to the creation of the opinion's outcome.

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

#597

Post by guscost » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

chasil wrote: post #556

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…

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 wou…

> That is truly a nightmare scenario.

Absolutely, but courts are supposed to interpret the law, not rule whichever way avoids nightmare scenarios.

The risk of going too far in that direction (and this is by no means the first case in which SCOTUS c̶l̶e̶a̶r̶l̶y̶ may have rationalized a decision for pragmatic reasons) is that it makes the court more corruptible. I am glad the majority ruled this way, because I agree that it leads to a better outcome in this case. On the other hand, any departure from a pure interpretation of the law is very dangerous, because it normalizes the more-corruptible mode of operation, and that can lead to another kind of "nightmare scenario".

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

#598

Post by sn_master » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:55 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

With that logic, Oracle didn't create Java either. It was purchased by Oracle from Sun in 2009, after Google had already created the Android API.

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

#599

Post by sn_master » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

burnte wrote: post #567

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…

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.

What Amazon deal? Did Amazon pay Oracle to license the Java API?

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

#600

Post by moron4hire » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 5:57 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #546

moron4hire wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Substantiality was only one factor in the decision. There were lots of others, such as raison d'être of copyright, "promoting the progress of science and art". Because allowing copying of APIs is more important to the "progress of science and art" than the economic impact on the creator of the API, APIs are thusly not copyrightable.

> APIs are thusly not copyrightable This is NOT what the Court found. At the very top of the Opinion, it says "we assume, for argument’s sake, that the material was copyrightable. But we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use."

Fair enough. I had taken that to mean they were assuming a given to then prove the negative.