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

651–660 of 965 posts

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

#651

Post by garaetjjte »

softwaredoug wrote: post #269

Judge William Alsup learned to code for this case, and was therefore able to avoid a lot of the BS being peddled around the significance of some of the code: > The argument centered on a function called rangeCheck. ... It was in Oracle’s interest to play up the significance of rangeCheck as much as possible, and David Boies, Oracle’s lawyer, began to argue that Google had copied rangeCheck so that it could take Andro…

>David Boies

That David Boies? I guess law firms will represent whoever will pay, but it seems somewhat funny that he also represented The SCO Group in their litigation against IBM...

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

#652

Post by btilly »

azernik wrote: post #644
btilly wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question? The main influence of the Supreme Court is in setting precedent. In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs…

> In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. This is not true - other circuit courts are free to set their own, conflicting precedent. Each circuit's decisions are binding only on its own judges, and suggestive but not binding on other circuits. Circuits deciding differe…

For most circuits what you say would be true. But the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is special. As http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction says, their jurisdiction is national and determined by subject matter.

That said I do not actually know whether they would be binding on another circuit court. But they are definitely binding on all federal courts lower than that.

However that question is sort of moot. It is extremely easy for the entity filing the case for infringement to include something about patent or trademark in the suit, which guarantees that you wind up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Where that ruling is binding.

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

#653

Post by guscost »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #639
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…

> 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 p…

Makes sense, and I am definitely not an expert on fair use. I'll cross out "clearly" in my aside above.

I was really just responding to the implication that SCOTUS did the right thing because "it would be a nightmare scenario" otherwise.

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

#654

Post by guscost »

bonzini wrote: post #645
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…

> courts are supposed to interpret the law The law also states that copyright's purpose is to stimulate progress of the arts, and that's why fair use is possible. Interpreting the law also means establishing the limits of fair use.

Good point.

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

#655

Post by [deleted] »

btilly wrote: post #611
GavinMcG wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it have been evaluated first? I understand the intuition you're getting at: logically, the first question could make the second irrelevant. But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question?

But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question? The main influence of the Supreme Court is in setting precedent. In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs…

[deleted]

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

#656

Post by pfdietz »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #512
pfdietz wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making APIs copyrightable is a GOOD thing. It means they aren't patentable.

Could you explain your line of thinking here a bit more?

https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/05/overlapping-protecting-...

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

#657

Post by bsimpson »

mlindner wrote: post #474
bsimpson wrote: post #387

It's interesting to me that they ruled that APIs are copyrightable, but that copying them is a fair use. In what circumstances would non-fair-use copyright then apply?

They didn't actually say whether APIs are copyrightable, just that they would assume it for sake of argument and test to see if the fair use test was sufficient. They found the fair use test sufficient so they didn't investigate whether it was copyrightable or not.

> In 2014, a federal appeals court ruled that the APIs could be subject to copyright in a controversial decision overturning a ruling by Judge William Alsup. (The Supreme Court declined to hear Google’s appeal the following year, letting the appellate ruling stand.)

- https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/5/22367851/google-oracle-sup...

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

#658

Post by curt15 »

btilly wrote: post #647
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…

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. It is even less decisive than you're saying. The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are. And for fair use, one of…

>The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are.

Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. As it does not have original jurisdiction in copyright disputes (only patent cases), it doesn't supercede any copyrightability rulings in other circuits, for instance the 1st circuit's holding in Lotus v Borland that the Lotus macros were not copyrightable as a "method of operation". And today's opinion cites Lotus v Borland several times even though the original 1996 Supreme Court case was deadlocked at 4-4.

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

#659

Post by adrr »

nullifidian wrote: post #407
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…

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…

Thats what patents are for. API is like designing your own custom plug to your device. You can't copyright that plug design, you can patent it its novel and new.

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

#660

Post by [deleted] »

nickbauman wrote: post #425
LogicUpgrade wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

Not a great analogy. People aren't looking to make "interoperable movies". But let's play that out for a moment. Would a copy of star wars with different actors, different scenic design, different music be much of a salable product? I don't think so. While I think it would be GREAT to see what Nick Nolte (Lucas was considering him) would have done with Han Solo over the wooden Harrison Ford, I'm not sure I care enoug…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN