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

701–710 of 965 posts

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

#701

Post by hluska »

Gh0stRAT wrote: post #406
ghaff wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but I can imagine something like the following: A. We decide this is fair use based on the small number of LOC used and call it a day B. OR we can decide that APIs are not copyrightable even though they're self-evidently creative works because of the importance of interoperability based on something something related to Borland v. Lotus, a case that we couldn't agree on the last time it came up. Hey folks. Let…

While I agree that APIs should not be copyrightable, the Supreme Court has been criticized for "legislating from the bench". Avoiding the temptation to set bigger and more far-reaching precedents than is strictly necessary for the case at hand avoids giving the impression that the judicial branch is doing the job of the legislative branch.

With what I know of Amy Coney Barrett, I’m very surprised she had no part in this decision. You did an absolutely wonderful job of explaining her whole feeling on the bench in two paragraphs. Seriously friend, that’s some excellent writing - excellent excellent job!!

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

#702

Post by AnimalMuppet »

adolph wrote: post #695
monocasa wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tro…

> the same people that are patent trolls would add misuse of copyright to their set of tools Prenda is an example of how misuse of copyright is already in the trolls' toolbox. Since you think about this stuff you might find the latest on the Santa Cruz Operation interesting: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/xinuos-finishes-pick... Xinuos is the company that purchased the remnants of the SCO Group in 2011. The…

I looked back at SCO v IBM on Groklaw. SCO wanted to claim copyright infringement over IBM's use of code from Project Monterrey, but they tried to add it too late, and the judge wouldn't let them amend the case yet again. Well, this Xinuos nonsense looks the the copyright version of that exact claim.

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

#703

Post by burnte »

jandrese wrote: post #571
burnte wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read Thomas' dissent, it'sabsolutely insane. He says how those 11k lines are basically 97.5% of Java's entire usefulness, and billions of dollars of value to Oracle from an Amazon deal. Absurdity.

Thomas lives in a weird alternative universe where logic works differently. His dissents are always a trip.

He really doesn, he and Scalia were the reliable crazy uncles of the court. Looks like Alito is trying to take up Scalia's mantle. I sear to god if Thomas had to rule on a runaway slave he'd rule for the slaveholder.

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

#704

Post by GavinMcG »

hluska wrote: post #701
Gh0stRAT wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that APIs should not be copyrightable, the Supreme Court has been criticized for "legislating from the bench". Avoiding the temptation to set bigger and more far-reaching precedents than is strictly necessary for the case at hand avoids giving the impression that the judicial branch is doing the job of the legislative branch.

With what I know of Amy Coney Barrett, I’m very surprised she had no part in this decision. You did an absolutely wonderful job of explaining her whole feeling on the bench in two paragraphs. Seriously friend, that’s some excellent writing - excellent excellent job!!

The case was argued weeks before Barrett was confirmed to the court.

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

#705

Post by andomar »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

It's interesting reading Thomas' dissent. As per typical Thomas appears to be arguing that it's the letter of the law that matters, whereas it's the majority opinion that the motivations and substance of the law are primary. Hackers and programmers tend to try and read the law like computer code to be "hacked" and exploited based on the letter of the law. So you'd expect us to be more sympathetic to Thomas' view. So…

"Following the letter of the law" means ignoring Congressional intent. It allows the judge to choose one of the many possible readings of a statute.

So in effect, "following the letter of the law" enlarges a judge's discretion. The opposite of what you would expect.

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

#706

Post by franklampard »

benley wrote: post #352
franklampard wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is an excellent metaphor but now I am curious, is it literally true?

Yeah I was giving an analogy similar to what Google is doing, but I am not sure of the legality of the exact case

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

#707

Post by andomar »

tantalor wrote: post #74

From 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 function…

Agreed. In another part the dissent says: "The Copyright Act protects code that operates “in a computer in order to bring about a certain result” both “directly” (implementing code) and “indirectly” (declaring code)."

But a program that only declares functions never brings about a result.

Declaring code is just the recipe for how to invoke implementing code.

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

#708

Post by monocasa »

pjmlp wrote: post #691
monocasa wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle's newer VM patents.

Cleverly forgetting those from IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Amazon, Azul, SAP, Alibaba and everyone else that works on Java?

No, because the core patents behind the features you're asking about are very much in Oracle's possession, as those class library improvements were overwhelmingly written by Sun/Oracle engineers. Those other actors you're talking about absolutely contribute, but not in as nearly a fundamental to the implementation of the library and runtime definitions kind of way.

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

#710

Post by stale2002 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #650
esarbe wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dissenting opinion is stupid. Thomas may be a bad justice, but he has even less of a clue about software devolopment. Of course there is a difference between an API and the code in general. This decision sidestepped the question of whether APIs are copyrightable or not by declaring that this particular instance was fair use. Reimplementing interfaces has always been fair-use, they are definitions. Re-Implementati…

> This decision sidestepped the question of whether APIs are copyrightable or not by declaring that this particular instance was fair use. This is incorrect, before fair use was tested, copyrightability was established, which is why the fair use defense, which is an exemption for copyright violation, was then determined. If you followed the various appeals and rulings this case entailed, you'd have to be aware of thi…

> APIs are copyrightable, as this case has determined

The supreme court explicitly refused to rule on whether code was copyrightable or not.

The lower courts made conflicting rulings on that question. But the supreme court itself only assumed, for the safe of argument, that code was copyrightable, and did not rule on that question itself.

Post reply on HN