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

621–630 of 965 posts

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

#621

Post by guscost »

sn_master wrote: post #618
guscost wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

If it reaches SCOTUS, it means the law is already ambiguous the way its written and that no one interpretation is obviously the correct one.

You would certainly hope so, but that logic just passes the responsibility to interpret law faithfully onto the lower courts, which are also perhaps more easily corrupted.

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

#622

Post by dang »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #563
dang wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

An idiot, in modern use, is a stupid or foolish person. I don't think I have used the term incorrectly.

Calling someone stupid or foolish is calling names in the sense that the site guidelines use that term. They ask you to omit all that from your posts to HN. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules?

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

#623

Post by jkingsbery »

curt15 wrote: post #247
jkingsbery wrote: post #232

I 100% agree that this is the right outcome. Any other outcome would be a nightmare for software developers and would inhibit the development of products. But the dissent raises an interesting point. I think it shows how the crafting of legislation by people who are wholly ignorant of technology can create problems. While programmers recognize the difference between an API and it's implementation, Thomas makes the in…

The court made no holding on whether APIs can be copyrighted. "We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copy-righted. "

Yes, a good point, it does. Breyer's opinion does say the court is arguing that the API is copy-righted, but used under fair use (as opposed to not copy-righted, in which case fair use doesn't make sense). But my point about what seems to be the main distinction making it copy-right-but-fair-use is the declaration vs. implementation concern, a distinction that logically exists (so I think the outcome is correct!), but does not seem to legally exist.

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

#624

Post by amalcon »

reactspa wrote: post #100
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…

It is fascinating that code is now being measured quantitatively. Number of "lines of code".

Number of lines is actually a pretty good (though imperfect) measure of how difficult a code base is to work with, which is why many developers are delighted by the opportunity to delete code.

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

#626

Post by crazypython »

tzs wrote: post #605
tantalor wrote: post #74

From the dissent: > The Copyright Act expressly protects computer code. It recognizes that a “computer program” is protected by copyright... And it defines “‘computer program’” as “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.” §101. That definition clearly covers declaring code—sets of statements that indirectly perform computer function…

Thomas may have phrased it badly, but his underlying point that declaring code in a program satisfies the 17 USC 101 definition of "computer program" seems sound. Declaring code in statement based languages is (1) a set of statements, is (2) used directly or indirectly in a computer, and it is used (3) to bring about a certain result. That hits all the points listed in 17 USC 101. This is trivial to prove. Take a pro…

Declaring statements are pure data. "int add(int, int);" is a piece of data, not a series of instructions. It may as well be a 4-tuple: (int, "add", int, int). You could convert each class declaration to a series of 4-tuples and put it in a CSV file. Database rights are much weaker than copyright.

> Take a program that works and remove the declaring code.

Actually, it will work just fine, because you the implementation necessarily has declarations in them, and you can generate declarations from the implementation.

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

#627

Post by aerovistae »

Does anyone have any insight into how the justices are educated about a case like this? I guess this applies to many cases, involving a variety of industries, but it's especially clear here that making a decision requires a technical understanding of the stakes. How are the justices made to understand what the different concepts meant? from reading the ruling it's clear that they have a very good understanding, and it's impressive for non-programmers, most of whom are older and did not grow up with technology.

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

#628

Post by fnordprefect »

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…

  One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?"
The Australian equivalent to the US Supreme Court considered this over 20 years ago, and imho got the correct result (not copyrightable): http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1...

IMHO they got the Huffman table wrong, although arguably it was the result compelled by an overprotective approach.

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

#629

Post by akiselev »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #535
hctaw wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 orga…

> Congress gave him that power - which I would argue was an abdication of authority vested in them.

Legislators assigning regulatory power to bureaucratic agencies is one of the cornerstones of modern democracies - it wouldn't work otherwise. Many of our legislators are barely qualified to send their own emails, let alone decide what is a telecom utility or how much ppb in drinking water is safe for a toxic chemical. Assigning that power to regulatory agencies allows experts to decide those issues in a neutral setting.

Pai's FCC aside, that structure prevented significant disruptions in the last four years and our country continues to function despite decades of increased partisanship and deadlock at the highest level.

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

#630

Post by ccleve »

mrkstu wrote: post #577
ccleve wrote: post #290

I like the outcome from a public policy perspective. The policy the court has imposed is good for the industry. But let's make no mistake -- this is legislating from the bench. The wholesale expropriation of an API is not the same thing as taking a small snippet of a copyrighted work for analysis, commentary, criticism, or scholarship. It is core the value of the work. Indeed, it's the most important part, because it…

Let's take the 'on a computer' portion out of it. If I specify that my company takes orders that only have certain header columns and must have specific format in certain fields on the bill of goods, is that /specification/ (not the full text I wrote, but the facts of the specification itself) copyrightable? Why? I don't see that the abstract facts of a specification of interoperability should receive any kind of cop…

As a matter of public policy, I agree that the specification should not receive protection, but under the law as written by Congress, it does. Thomas's dissent is correct.

My comment is about process, not policy.

Post reply on HN