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

711–720 of 965 posts

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

#711

Post by monocasa »

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…

And that's probably not going to go anywhere either. Yes, there's the occasional attempt, but it's a set of fringe actions that don't turn out great for the agressor rather than a well trodden playbook that will probably earn you many millions like patent trolls can expect.

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

#712

Post by jessriedel »

andomar wrote: post #705
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.

No, not generally. Congress is 545 different people, who definitely don't have a coherent collective intent. The only thing they did collectively was pass the text of the law.

So any coherent notion of "congressional intent" has to mean the intent a person reading the text would infer about a hypothetical coherent author. I don't know anything about this particular case, but it is not at all true in general that there are more ways for a reader to interpret the explicit meaning of the written words than there are ways for a reader to interpret the intent of the written words.

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

#713

Post by curt15 »

nullifidian wrote: post #407
teruakohatu wrote: post #7

> "Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of declaring code from the API, which amounts to virtually all the declaring code needed to call up hundreds of different tasks. Those 11,500 lines, however, are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.86 million total lines. In considering “the amount and substantiality of the portion used” in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed as…

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…

>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.

GNU/Linux, a free reimplementation of AT&T's Unix interfaces, is largely why commercial Unix isn't really a thing any more.

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

#714

Post by mdale »

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…

Wine was not really as much of an organized commercial endeavor so was not as much of a target

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

#715

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

btilly wrote: post #647
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…

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…

I wonder how this would effect things like Preact too, which for operability sake, uses the exact same API as React.

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

#716

Post by anamexis »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #715
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…

I wonder how this would effect things like Preact too, which for operability sake, uses the exact same API as React.

In that specific example, I don't think it would really affect them, since both React and Preact are MIT licensed.

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

#717

Post by 0df8dkdf »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #715
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…

I wonder how this would effect things like Preact too, which for operability sake, uses the exact same API as React.

Not a lawyer, seems like this case will hold precedence then. The whole idea of copy righting an API is insane.

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

#718

Post by dctoedt »

wtallis wrote: post #693
btilly wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. No, not only 9th circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding nationwide. And if the case includes claims about patents and/or trademarks, even if those specific claims are thrown out, then the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit becomes the court that the case is appealed to. Which is how this particular case wound up there…

When ruling on aspects of a case that fall outside of their subject matter jurisdiction (eg. copyright rather than patents), the Federal Circuit is supposed to follow the local circuit's precedent, ie. rule how they think the Ninth Circuit would have ruled on those issues. And my understanding is that the Federal Circuit's rulings on eg. the copyright aspects of a case like this do not overturn Ninth Circuit copyrigh…

IP lawyer here — @wtallis's summary is how I understand the impact of the Federal Circuit decision as well.

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

#719

Post by stjohnswarts »

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #233
teruakohatu wrote: post #7

> "Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of declaring code from the API, which amounts to virtually all the declaring code needed to call up hundreds of different tasks. Those 11,500 lines, however, are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.86 million total lines. In considering “the amount and substantiality of the portion used” in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed as…

I'm glad about this outcome, because I agree the other outcome would have had a devastating effect on software development. I also appreciate this fair use argument, especially when you point out the code in question was 0.4% of the entire API. Still, I'll always struggle with the idea that "the amount and substantiality of the portion used" when copying an interface is comparable to copying an implementation. The in…

It's one thing to steal algorithms but for interoperability to remain possible it is necessary for API to remain "fair use". I can't agree with you that this is a bad thing for them to copy Java SE interfaces.

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

#720

Post by rocqua »

rocqua wrote: post #587
Silhouette wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Justice Thomas agrees with your assessment, and he raises concern that the SCOTUS has essentially made APIs practically uncopyrightable (in that they will 100% of the time find that it's fair-use to use them). That would seem a reasonable outcome, for much the same reason that copyright not protecting the appearance of fonts under US law is reasonable. Yes, it is overriding copyright protection for a creati…

> Yes, it is overriding copyright protection for a creative work that would otherwise apply. However, it does so because a greater good is served One could argue that this is for the judicial branch, not the legislative branch, to decide.

Sigh, I made a mistake mixing up the order of judicial and legislative in the sentence.
Post reply on HN