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]

#671

Post by nullifidian » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #659

nullifidian wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if you are opposed to algorithmic/software patents it would be an unpleasant choice to make. Also, copyright is probably (I'm not sure) easier/cheaper to litigate, because it's much more evident when something is copied, compared to divinating whether something violates a patent or not.

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

#672

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

kaba0 wrote: post #253

curt15 wrote: post #55

"The record also showed that Java SE’s copyright holder would benefit from the reimplementation of its interface into a different market....the jury also heard evidence that Sun foresaw a benefit from the broader use of the Java programming language in a new platform like Android, as it would further expand the network of Java-trained programmers...and because there are two markets at issue, programmers learning the…

Except that Android is a fkup of “Java” that is so old that repositories have to create an android and a normal version. Kotlin spread into android development pretty much because android java is so bad. That is exactly what was the “damage” Oracle sued for.

I kinda doubt Oracle sued for 9 billions damages because Google tarnished Oracle's image with their bad Java implementation.

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

#673

Post by monocasa » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

ccleve wrote: post #630

mrkstu wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Under the law, they do not receive protection.

See Baker v. Selden, which despite it's age is still good law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden

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

#674

Post by Black101 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

Does that mean that we can use portions of copyright code/text with no repercussions?

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

#675

Post by adolph » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #470

adolph wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement. Today's decision has to do with the fair use defence in the copyright portion of the lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_... .

I understand that. I'm saying that the same people that are patent trolls would add misuse of copyright to their set of tools if it became that became a viable option available to them. Today's patent trolls would just be called IP trolls, but they'd be the same set of people.

Copyright is already misused to perform DCMA takedowns of fair use and is a well known option available to all comers. I think the classic example was the Prenda lawsuit firm.

Prenda made its money by suing people who allegedly downloaded pornographic films online. Its targets frequently agreed to settlements worth a few thousand dollars rather than facing a courtroom process. These copyright trolling tactics netted the company more than $6 million between 2010 and 2013.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-...

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

#676

Post by wtallis » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

curt15 wrote: post #658

btilly wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 copyrightabili…

> Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit.

I think it's even narrower than that: the Federal Circuit's ruling on non-patent aspects of the case isn't binding precedent outside of Oracle v. Google. District courts in the Ninth Circuit and the appeals court are free to ignore the Federal Circuit ruling in future cases and look to only rulings from the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court as binding precedent.

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

#677

Post by gnopgnip » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 6:59 PM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #81

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…

Thomas's dissent explicitly points this out. Without diving into "are APIs copyrightable?", the majority are skipping what should have been evaluated first before saying if they were fair-use or not.

APIs and most code is copyrightable, they are original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium, all that is required by he Copyright Act of 1976. It doesn't look like either party in this case claimed the code was not eligible for copyright either

If they shouldn't be copyrightable because the world would be better off, interoperability between business is harmed, it is up to congress to change the law. Historically legislation like this harms smaller companies mostly, larger companies can better afford to deal with the requirement to license or the cost/work required to stick to fair use or litigate over it, so the larger companies that can afford to lobby to change the law aren't going to want them changed.

This case certainly sets precedent that API re-implementation can be fair use, not that it always is. Fair use is very fact specific, based on a four part test where having one part in favor can be fair use, and having three parts in your favor can still be infringement. A future case with products that would have a more substantial effect on the market of the original work, or had more of the original work reused than was strictly necessary could very well be infringement. With regards to "the amount and substantiality of the portion used" in this case less than 1% of the original code was copied just measuring the lines of code. Substantiality is harder to put a number on, but arguably it was only a small portion of the original product. This is a very low and for many other APIs a more substantial portion would need to be copied to be useful. The precedential value of this case is unclear without either the law changing, or further litigation.

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

#678

Post by joelkevinjones » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:02 PM UTC

shirleyquirk wrote: post #166

imadethis wrote: post #28

Page 44 has Thomas’s dissent with Alito concurring. Worth a read as well, even just to see the opposing arguments.

Designing an API is a creative work not unlike that of an architect, I see the merit in the dissent pointing out, e.g "there may have been only one way for Google to copy the lines of declaring code, but there were innumerable ways for Oracle to write them. Certainly, Apple and Microsoft managed to create their own declaring code."

I'm not sure what Thomas was referring to. What does "create their own declaring code" mean? Did they do some kind of white room implementation where they typed in the contents of a javadoc web site? Did they modify the name of parameters?

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

#679

Post by monocasa » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

adolph wrote: post #675

monocasa wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that. I'm saying that the same people that are patent trolls would add misuse of copyright to their set of tools if it became that became a viable option available to them. Today's patent trolls would just be called IP trolls, but they'd be the same set of people.

Copyright is already misused to perform DCMA takedowns of fair use and is a well known option available to all comers. I think the classic example was the Prenda lawsuit firm. Prenda made its money by suing people who allegedly downloaded pornographic films online. Its targets frequently agreed to settlements worth a few thousand dollars rather than facing a courtroom process. These copyright trolling tactics netted…

I mean, that article is about how the Prenda saga ended with the lawyer disbarred and in prison.

If his strategies had ended up a valid, legal option we would absolutely see trolls expanding into this. John Steele was testing the waters and got eaten by the deep acting as a warning for how not to go about this.

There's some DMCA takedowns and such still, but they aren't quite lucrative enough to show up on patent trolls' radars. Aquila non capit muscas and what have you. A several billion dollar copyright claim like Oracle's passing SCOTUS muster absolutely would have shown up on their radar though.

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

#680

Post by lolinder » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

bostonsre wrote: post #594

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?

The Supreme Court is the court of last resort. They'd have to start over with some new argument, and if they had a better one I imagine they would've pulled it out by now.