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

631–640 of 965 posts

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

#631

Post by iam-TJ »

comex wrote: post #510
oconnor663 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question from a layman: Does "interoperability" as a concept have any legal relevance here? Like focusing on programmer skills seems kind of beside the point, which is really for two pieces of software to be able to interoperate.

Yes, interoperability is relevant, because it affects the necessity of copying that particular code rather than making one's own substitute, which in turn affects fair use. But Google's lawyers (inexplicably, in my opinion) failed to talk much about the fact that many Java libraries are interoperable between Android and Oracle Java, leaving the courts to think only in terms of full applications which are not interope…

Google didn't argue on interoperability since that would have torpedoed their core arguments that Android is a transformative work creating a new market outside of, and different from, Sun Java Standard Edition.

To argue interoperability Google would have needed to copy the entire JAVA SE API.

The key difference is that Java SE (designed for desktops) API was considered by Google mostly not required on smartphone/mobile devices envisaged for Android. Sun would only licence Java SE complete (Sun was the one wanting complete interoperability).

To the extent the concept of interoperability enters into it, it was on the human side; the arguments were about leveraging existing programmer knowledge to the extent that Android's requirements were shared with and common to Java SE.

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

#632

Post by bpodgursky »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #588
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]

If your worldview is this simple, it is also probably very wrong.

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

#633

Post by [deleted] »

extropy wrote: post #604
jhanschoo wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

How is J2ME not competing?

[deleted]

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

#634

Post by 8note »

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 gap in the law they've clarified is what fair use looks like for software.

When the API definition is a small portion of a work, it is fair use to reimplement the api

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

#635

Post by syshum »

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.

But the comment was not really about liabilities, but even in that context I think the history is still relevant.

Rewriting history the way we do in the context has all kinds of problems associated with it

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

#636

Post by monocasa »

extropy wrote: post #604
jhanschoo wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

How is J2ME not competing?

Because

A) J2ME targeted feature phones.

B) Google isn't accused of copying J2ME when you get down to it. The parts that make ME distinct from SE weren't reimplemented in Android's Harmony fork (looking strongly at javax.microedition), and a lot of packages that SE implemented that ME didn't were present in Android.

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

#637

Post by esturk »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #126

For better or worse, the same arguments ( "API is copyrightable" ) is what was used in the past to prevent 98's Microsoft from doing embrace-extend-extinguish to Java with their "JavaVM with P/Invoke'd Win32 API". The idea in that case was that when you try to implement something identical to the Java language and standard library, it doesn't matter if you call it Java or "Visual J++"; you are still implementing Java…

You say the alternative is bad but stop short of evaluating how bad. There's clearly a difference here and you don't seem to shy away from giving an opinion yet you also claim to be undecided for a court case that had lasted 10 years.

I'm sorry, but this smells like a bad faith argument.

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

#638

Post by Der_Einzige »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #123
thedevelopnik wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There is no appellate court above the Supreme Court. The only way things could change now is if Congress/President passed a new law, and I don’t think API copyrights are near the top of the list.

> There is no appellate court above the Supreme Court. That is true. > The only way things could change now is if Congress/President passed a new law That isn't true at all; the Supreme Court is free to change the law by itself. Someone could sue over the same question and get a different result overruling this one.

And this has happened hundreds of times already

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_State...

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

#639

Post by matthewdgreen »

guscost wrote: post #597
chasil wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> On the other hand, any departure from a pure interpretation of the law is very dangerous

You should read the law in question. This would be Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which defines "fair use". It's extremely vague and is best interpreted as a set of considerations that the courts should take into account so that they can handle situations like this one on a case by case basis. If Congress wanted to be more prescriptive, they could (ETA: and if they become unhappy with the courts' decisions they still can in the future), but I think that would lead to worse outcomes.

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

#640

Post by dleslie »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #480
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…

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…

Wow, that's an insanely brilliant evil business plan. And plausible, too.

The copyrightability of APIs will have to be determined.

Post reply on HN