Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 643 posts

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#71

Post by randomerr »

gsnedders wrote: post #33
stephen wrote: post #22

I wonder how the $$ Google might pay to Oracle compares to the $$ it is spending to move away from Java by building replacements (v8, Go, Dart, Flutter/Fuschia, etc.) that are all essentially "GC languages with a great runtime VM". E.g. I can understand Oracle/Sun needing some amount of money for stewarding Java, as the teams required to build/maintain/QA/release the JVM were AFAIU in the hundreds, so not cheap. But…

V8 has little to do with Oracle, fundamentally. V8 came about because they wanted a higher performance JS VM for their browser; the JVM was never in contention there.

In underlying code you are correct. But they both work in a C/C++ style. JavaScript has become a 'Write Once, Run Anywhere' foundation because of the web browser. Don't forget projects like NWJS (Node Webkit), Electron, Cordova/PhoneGap, Google Chrome Apps, NodeJS, and ClearScript(.NET).

All of these JavaScript implementations use the V8 JVM and can make desktop and command line application. Depending on security settings they can give partial to full system access to the underlying OS just like Java. If this ruling is upheld I would look for Oracle to float a trial balloon on newer JavaScript implementations and for stealing their Java's API's.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#72

Post by wrs »

ABCLAW wrote: post #62
kodablah wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me naive, but is a company being happy with what you're doing to the tune of them even saying so (or representatives thereof) tantamount to an implicit contract? I know it's been argued in this case, but it strikes me as disingenuous at the least and fraudulent at the most to change your mind. Sure we don't mind Google bearing the brunt of this because they can, but how would we feel were a smaller company subje…

This isn't a bait and switch based on legalities. If Oracle made representations to Google that they didn't mind them using their software, Google would be able to claim that Oracle is estopped from pursuing a claim due to the prior authorization they received. What's being stated here is that Google's infringement improved Oracle's market position - that fact doesn't bar Oracle from pursuing their remedy against inf…

They did make those representations, and Google did claim that.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-sc...

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#74

Post by dastbe »

mtgx wrote: post #38
BoorishBears wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: I feel Google should be punished for what they did to Java. Maybe the mechanism being used is wrong, but Android bastardized Java and as an Android developer I feel real damage has been done to the health of the Java ecosystem by having billions of devices run fragmented Java-but-not-Java. Google has started to make it right with the switch to openJDK and Desugar, but in a lot of ways it’s too litt…

On the other hand, Java was on a decline before Android, and since then it's more popular than ever. Just think how many new developers have had to "learn Java" just so they can build Android apps. I understand the fragmentation issue, but I think it's a minor one and the net benefit for the Java ecosystem was much larger. Also, Oracle is simply in the wrong trying to copyright APIs, and it has gotten a lot of hate f…

This argument that Java was dying before the arrival of Android is super suspect. At best, you could say java was stuck in a rut between 6 and 7 (similar to c++ up until c++11), but it’s industry usage had not waned.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#75

Post by jkaplowitz »

bitwize wrote: post #47
cromwellian wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, “stealing” an API and open source, building a successful mobile UI platform (unlike personal/embedded java and Sun’s own failed attempts at fragmentation) and contributing it free back to open source where it has been used as a base OS for thousands of new products from TVs to drones.

Regardless, the CAFC has ruled -- twice -- that APIs are subject to copyright. The Supremes are likely to deny cert again, so that stands as the law of the land. You steal someone's API, you pay a penalty. Don't like it? Write your Congressman.

Law of the case, not law of the land.

This only stands as law of the land when the plaintiff manages to include a patent claim (even a weak one that later gets thrown out) to force the case under the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction, as happened here. They don't normally hear copyright cases.

While I'm sure more such patent claims will get bundled with API copyright claims in the future where a plaintiff can credibly manage that, it's not otherwise the law of the land.

(An aside: I think the Federal Circuit may have considered aspects of Ninth Circuit precedent in this ruling, as they're supposed to do for non-patent issues from the Ninth Circuit. Even they might rule differently in cases from other circuits, maybe just making it the law of cases they handle from the Ninth Circuit with significant persuasive impact on how they'd rule on cases from other circuits.)

Eventually a normal Ninth (or other) Circuit panel will rule on this. They're not bound by the CAFC ruling, though they will undoubtedly consider it. As soon as one circuit rules otherwise, that will create a circuit split.

Eventually, the Supreme Court will want to resolve that circuit split and will grant cert, either changing this bad precedent even for cases that go to the Federal Circuit or truly making it the law of the land.

A Supreme Court ruling on this would only affect the current Oracle v Google case if it happens before this case is fully finalized, given the doctrine of res judicata. But it would help future cases, including between these parties about a different topic, as well as between Oracle and other companies about the Java API.

With all of that said, contacting representatives in Congress and Senate to make explicit that APIs aren't copyrightable would still be great, as would narrowing the CAFC's jurisdictions to patent claims (and its otherwise specialized areas) or eliminating it entirely.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#76

Post by _delirium »

amrrs wrote: post #8

I'm worried if this is again going to pose serious problems in using open source stack and building profitable solutions. So, If I'm going to build something profitable using R and Tensorflow/Keras then someday I could be sued by the consortium or Microsoft that owns Revolution Analytics (that controls R) ?

R is GPL, so as long as you're complying with the GPL terms in your use of it or derivative works, you're fine. If you make your own API-compatible reimplementation of R that isn't covered under the GPL's permission grant, though, then you might have issues (this case will in part determine what kinds of issues).

Also, the copyrights for R are mainly held by the nonprofit R Foundation, not by Revolution Analytics: https://www.r-project.org/foundation/. An API case from R copyright holders would additionally be really messy because a huge portion of the APIs originate in Bell Labs S, which they don't own the copyright to. Though there might be some sleeper case where whoever now owns the original S copyright pops up and sues R users for having cloned S's API...

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#78

Post by anonymouse11 »

wstrange wrote: post #17
BoorishBears wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: I feel Google should be punished for what they did to Java. Maybe the mechanism being used is wrong, but Android bastardized Java and as an Android developer I feel real damage has been done to the health of the Java ecosystem by having billions of devices run fragmented Java-but-not-Java. Google has started to make it right with the switch to openJDK and Desugar, but in a lot of ways it’s too litt…

Android arguably saved Java by making it much more relevant than it otherwise would have been.

What is it with all these ignorant but highly opinionated folks seemingly astro turfing for Google? Java remains very strong on the server side and it hardly needs Android to "save" it.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#79

Post by pjmlp »

todd3834 wrote: post #5

I’m not sure if I have the timeline correct but I thought Java was owned by Sun Microsystems at the time when they made these decisions. I’m sure they rightly assumed Sun Microsystems would never do this. It is sad to see what Oracle is doing with Sun Microsystem’s creation.

Like school bullying, they assumed that they could get away with it, because Sun was out of money to sue them.

Here is the latest Gosling interview on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#80

Post by IAmEveryone »

JepZ wrote: post #64

OT: Thinking about API copyright I wonder how that is supposed to work in other programming languages e.g. Golang. Lets assume Google owns the copyright of the 'io.Writer' interface for the moment. Is everybody who has implemented a struct with a Writer method which satisfies the 'io.Writer' interface and as oracle stated it 'who wants to use them for a competing platform or to embed them in an electronic device' now…

Short answer: no

The law doesn't work as a set of naive rules like "If API->You need a license" because human life is full of nuances that can never be fully captured in a set of rigid rules. I know that people are uncomfortable with this truth, because our systems of courts often appears to the casual observer as just a bunch of "elders" making subjective decisions. Hence "smart contracts" etc.

And while the criticism isn't completely wrong, the system as it exists in the US today is actually working quite well, with the professional ethos and rules of the court system being somewhat successful at overriding any individual judge's predilections.

Anyway, in your case the difference is obviously one of scope. Even in the original ruling that affirmed APIs to be subject to copyright, the judge ultimately dismissed the case because they considered Google's actions to fall under "fair use".

While this was now struck down on appeal, it is absolutely certain that copying a single method's signature would still be protected as fair use. Moreover, in the case you mention, a method such as File.write() would probably not fall under any copyright because there isn't much of any creativity involved.

Post reply on HN