Oh, I forgot this little apocalypse was hanging over our heads. It's good to see some sanity.
This made me wonder what gender 'apocalypse' has in French (feminine, it seems - la petit apocalypse),
Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
71–80 of 965 posts
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#72Is this a final judgement? Is it over now?
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.
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing, so I'm not sure how this could be anything but a sad day for sustainable open source development. If you're big enough and have enough lawyers, there's no reason to license software you want to build on.
> This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing Can you elaborate on that? What does this have to do with those thing?
Google had the option to use the OpenJDK and make Android a GPL-based platform. They did not want to. They could've, and tried to, negotiate a separate license, but simply decided to copy what they wanted instead, relying on their legal team to protect them.
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#74From the dissent:
> The Copyright Act expressly protects computer code. It recognizes that a “computer program” is protected by copyright... And it defines “‘computer program’” as “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.” §101. That definition clearly covers declaring code—sets of statements that indirectly perform computer functions by triggering prewritten implementing code.
Thomas seems confused here. An API (declaring code) is not a computer program. A computer cannot execute declaring code - by definition - because it is missing the implementation.
Declaring code does not "indirectly perform computer functions". Declaring code does not perform anything. It provides a reference, nothing more, for a compiler to match one computer program (the API client) to another (the API implementation).
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
As both that thread title and the Supreme Court opinion say, the jury found in favour of Google. They were then overruled by the Federal Court, which has now in turn been overruled by the Supremes.
Edit: Heh, yep. I was blind to it, fixed, thank you!
I think you maybe typoed your comment then, it says the jury found for Oracle.
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#76From the dissent: "In the 1990s, Oracle created a programming language called Java..." Sun Microsystems was acquired in 2010... I guess I should give Thomas the benefit of the doubt that he intended the statement to apply to Oracle's owned IP & not be a historical account of the language's creation and creators, but this rubbed me the wrong way.
Not surprised at all the Thomas and Alito are in that dissent..
I was under the impression that a dissent has to be written, even if they all agree in the majority opinion/ruling?
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#77First of all, very good news. Second of all, what does this mean for Fuchsia, Dart, and related projects? I always assumed they were a hedge against Google having to pay exorbitant licensing fees to Oracle. Now that the threat has disappeared, will those projects be sunsetted too?
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
As both that thread title and the Supreme Court opinion say, the jury found in favour of Google. They were then overruled by the Federal Court, which has now in turn been overruled by the Supremes.
Edit: Heh, yep. I was blind to it, fixed, thank you!
[deleted]
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Held: Google’s copying of the Java SE API, which included only those lines of code that were needed to allow programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, was a fair use of that material as a matter of law." If the un-italicized is the new test, that's probably the most reasonable thing I'm going to read this month. And it's only the 5th.
They didn't establish a new test, they applied the existing 4 tests / factors and found that they indicated fair use. The first 2 or 3 pages contain a description of the 4 tests and how they were found to apply in this case.
Not entirely. Per my understanding, this is a fairly big shift:
"The fair use question is a mixed question of fact and law. Reviewing courts should appropriately defer to the jury’s findings of underlying facts, but the ultimate question whether those facts amount to a fair use is a legal question for judges to decide de novo. This approach does not violate the Seventh Amendment’s prohibition on courts reexamining facts tried by a jury, because the ultimate question here is one of law, not fact. The “right of trial by jury” does not include the right to have a jury resolve a fair use defense."
Or to put it another way, convincing a jury that something is or isn't fair use is very different than convincing precedent-bound judges, especially with this on the books as the controlling case.
In final impact, it seems like an incredibly good judgement for everyone: you can prove to a jury what was / wasn't copied, and then a judge will apply a standard fair use test over those facts, with a tendency towards allowing transformative use.
Legal protections against copying, room for progress, and (most importantly!) more certainty and standardization in how cases are decided.
Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
#80From the dissent: "In the 1990s, Oracle created a programming language called Java..." Sun Microsystems was acquired in 2010... I guess I should give Thomas the benefit of the doubt that he intended the statement to apply to Oracle's owned IP & not be a historical account of the language's creation and creators, but this rubbed me the wrong way.
[deleted]