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

661–670 of 965 posts

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

#661

Post by VikingCoder »

flyingfences wrote: post #260
VikingCoder wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. I would say that they are not so much trying to ignore the fact as acknowledging the fact but taking the position that it the court's role to interpret the implementation, not to guess at the intent.

Lower courts: "Wait, did you mean LESS THAN, or LESS THAN OR EQUAL?"

Supreme Court: "For now, we'll presume LESS THAN OR EQUAL."

Legislature: "Wait, we meant LESS THAN."

We need a decision NOW. The Supreme Court supplies a decision NOW. The Legislature can change it.

Interpreting the implementation demands guessing at the intent on the edge cases. It can't not. Even if your preference is to always pretend the language is absolute.

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

#663

Post by TimTheTinker »

akiselev wrote: post #629
TimTheTinker wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> it wouldn't work otherwise.

Agreed that regulatory agencies are indispensable. But their job is to carry out the law, not make the law. Of course, the law has to delegate some decision-making responsibility to them -- the law can't make every decision ahead of time. But (a) the law can codify principles that regulatory agencies must uphold, and (b) lawsuits can be filed when someone disagrees that a principle has been accurately upheld -- the courts can decide.

We as a country ought to be arguing and disagreeing about principles, and the results (decided by legislators who are under the gun of potential non-reelection) ought to be codified as laws. A lack of principle in congress and in law is what really causes this abdication and delegation of authority.

An ideal legal corpus represents (as much as possible) a simply and directly expressed set of principles under which the country operates.

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

#664

Post by Ekaros »

franklampard wrote: post #327
hammock wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I copy the entire A volume of Encyclopedia Britannica, but leave B-Z alone, I'm good?

No but it’s okay to copy all the entry names in the encyclopedia and fill in the content yourself

I think all entry names in encyclopaedia would fall under collection of facts that is not copyrightable... Same goes for recipes. I don't see how list of words existing and being used would qualify as work under USA copy-right. The entries themselves though are likely in many cases protected, but likely not all.

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

#665

Post by curt15 »

hannasanarion wrote: post #603
chris_wot wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WINE and ReactOS guys must be cheering!

It's a win for all open software. Torvalds and Stallman didn't ask Bell's permission before re-implementing Unix

Why was this comment downvoted? Does GNU/Linux not largely reimplement proprietary Unix?

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

#666

Post by luckylion »

coldtea wrote: post #545
luckylion wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would be the mark of "automatic generation" that would be used to identify them as such and disqualify them? None, but you wouldn't get copyright, much like you can present the works of others as your own but won't actually get the copyright if you're not the creator.

Huh? For one, nothing stops you from saying you are the creator, and nobody would have any way to say you're not. Second, even if you have used a generator tool, regardless of if you wrote it or just run it, you're the creator of the works it produced, and you can trivially get copyright for it, unless somebody else copyrighted the same work. Half of Brian Eno's output is generated works, where he sets some rules on…

> Huh? For one, nothing stops you from saying you are the creator, and nobody would have any way to say you're not.

Sure, just as nothing is stopping you from walking into a store, taking something, and walking out without paying. It's when you get caught doing so that the trouble beings. If you get caught, not only do you not get the copyright, but you've likely committed fraud.

Proving that you're not the creator is another issue, which would probably make for an interesting case.

> Half of Brian Eno's output is generated works, where he sets some rules on a music synthesis system, and lets it create a work. Never had any issue copyrighting them...

That's somewhat different though. Setting rules makes it a predictable process, and you have a one-way system: you set the rules and you always get the same result. A generator that would generate all possible results isn't the same.

If you sifted through all those randomly generated things, found one that you like, and published it, things get fuzzy, I guess. Maybe the curation would qualify as the creative input.

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

#667

Post by lolinder »

ISL wrote: post #402
qalmakka wrote: post #12

This is one of the most important legal decisions in the history of software. The US Supreme Court has basically just saved the whole software industry (and FOSS projects) from being wrecked by patent trolls.

It is going to open a big door for people who reimplement APIs. In particular, social-media aggregators (one app to display your Twitter, FB, Instagram, etc.) may have new protections.

I don't know about that. The issue at hand there isn't implementation of APIs, it's using an existing API (run on existing infrastructure) in a way that the social media company does not approve of. Isn't that more an issue of unauthorized access than of copyright?

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

#669

Post by BoorishBears »

curt15 wrote: post #543
BoorishBears wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like you read Jonathan Schwartz's testimony and almost misinterpreted it. The license included using Java's name and trademark and that was for Sun's benefit, not Google. Google wasn't asking to call it a Java phone. That's why part of the testimony is actually Sun saying they'd pay for that And the rest of your comment is completely missing the mark here. You're saying MS was in the wrong with J++ becaus…

If Android's "Java" is so different, then how does Google benefit? The whole point of reusing an existing language is to jump-start the app ecosystem by allowing developers to make use of their existing experience.

It's just different enough to be damaging?

Like in Java 7 days Android didn't support NIO, randomly didn't support certain forms of exception handling, had random holes in library support (core Java libraries mind you, not the sun stuff)

The odds you could take a random XML parsing library for example and use it in an Android project were low. Random namespaces would be missing, cryptic errors tied to missing language support, the works.

Like you realize the idea of having a kinda-almost-the-same language being damaging is already known. J++ was not the same set of circumstances, but it shows that yes, you can make a language similar enough to benefit and at the same time be different enough to damage.

I mean literally QNX had better support through some vendor we were using at the time, but somehow Google couldn't do better?

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

#670

Post by hyperpallium2 »

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…

Always seemed crazy to me that interoperability was ever in doubt.

Copyright in a private, internal API seems reasonable in principle.

RIP kotlin-first on android?

Post reply on HN