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

731–740 of 965 posts

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

#731

Post by anonymouse008 »

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…

> Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment.

I'm waiting for an ambitious attorney to figure out how to frame this as poaching talent from an ecosystem to bring to another.

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

#732

Post by Someone »

bluedays wrote: post #494
shadowgovt wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can recommend focusing on Justice Thomas' dissent, which contains a section related to this topic. 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). I actually disagree with him, but only in one sub-category: I think a SCOTUS ruling would be harder…

Thomas is almost always on the wrong side of history. If you want your API non copyrightable, don't make it public. Problem solved.

I think you mean “If you want your API copyrightable, don't make it public”, not “If you want your API non copyrightable, don't make it public”

Now, how do you let third parties program against that non-public API? Would only showing it to licensees be a legal way to do that?

If so, and if the API becomes popular, I don’t see how to prevent those licensees from leaking the API to the world, say through small code snippets on Stack Overflow.

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

#733

Post by dragonwriter »

btilly wrote: post #611
GavinMcG wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it have been evaluated first? I understand the intuition you're getting at: logically, the first question could make the second irrelevant. But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question?

But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question? The main influence of the Supreme Court is in setting precedent. In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs…

> the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable.

No, its not.

The CAFC’s interpretation of Ninth Amendment case law on copyrightability in this case (before and after the Supreme Court sidestepped it) is binding on no one except future courts hearing cases on issues and between parties so closely related to those in Oracle v. Google that res judicata rather than rules of precedent is the deciding factor

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

#734

Post by waterheater »

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…

>A computer cannot execute declaring code - by definition - because it is missing the implementation.

If you allow null pointer references to a declared variable, then it certainly can.

>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).

I strongly disagree. We understand the obvious difference between declaration and instantiation, as declaration brings a variable into existence while instantiation specifies the variable's value. Declaring a variable is ultimately based upon available language primitives.

Whether or not he realized it, Thomas draws out a deep philosophical element of computing. Consider the creation of a self-hosting compiler. Once created, this compiler has an identity. However, creating this compiler required the usage of other software tools, each of which have distinct identities. Once the compiler operates, its creating tools become unnecessary to it, as the compiler operates independently (though the broader system may not). His phrase "triggering prewritten implementing code" has full-stack implications, whereas the majority opinion considers scope.

To connect to hierarchical processing model of programming, the majority opinion says a top-level processing block is special, whereas Thomas says no processing block differs from one another.

From a business perspective, I agree with the majority. From a philosophical perspective, I agree with Thomas.

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

#735

Post by gigatexal »

I’m super conflicted because I think I side with Oracle here and I never seem to. Java had an established API. It had a license. Google could have licensed it and the end result would have been the same: Java apps on Android. Weren’t there even Google brass worried about this in emails? It seems to me Oracle is due license fees but SCOTUS ruled otherwise and I guess that’s overall better for the industry.

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

#736

Post by AlexCoventry »

dragonwriter wrote: post #728
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…

> No, not only 9th circuit. Not even the 9th Circuit. For cases arising from thr 9th Cir., 9th Cir. case law binds the CAFC, not the other way around, on issues that are outside ofnthe subject-matter for which the CAFC has nationwide jurisdiction. > The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding nationwide No, it’s decisions are only binding nationwide on the issues within its special jurisdiction, which cop…

> issues within its special jurisdiction

How are those issues defined?

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

#737

Post by dragonwriter »

UncleMeat wrote: post #388
VikingCoder wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, when the code allows an exploit, that's a bug. Thomas is supposed to help us understand the intent of the code - what the Requirement was. Yes, it's better for us if the code reflects the intent perfectly. But to the degree that's not possible, we need someone to Interpret the code. Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. The Legislature should do a f…

> Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. It is actually the opposite. Textualists say that intent doesn't mean squat. Originalists will consider intent. Textualists say that intent is unknowable and therefore you must exclusively use the text of the law, regardless of how stupid that might seem.

> Textualists say that intent doesn't mean squat. Originalists will consider intent.

In practice, textualism and originalism aren’t all that different, because most of the same indicia that originalists will look to for signs of “original intent” textualists will look to for signs of what the words of the text mean in their original context (textualists are not, as a class, blind to context). While different observers will weight the individual indicia differently, the variation within the textualist and originalist camps on this is more significant than that between the camps. The camps really mostly differ in how they tend to frame arguments from the same facts to the same conclusions.

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

#738

Post by bobbyi_settv »

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…

> One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use:

Doesn't deciding that it's fair use specifically mean that they think it is copyrightable? The fair use doctrine specifically refers to the use of copyrighted material.

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

#739

Post by AnimalMuppet »

bobbyi_settv wrote: post #738
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…

> One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use: Doesn't deciding that it's fair use specifically mean that they think it is copyrightable? The fair use doctrine specifically refers to the use of copyrighted material.

No. "Assume it's copyrightable. It's still fair use." That means you don't have to answer "Is it copyrightable?" The Supreme Court generally prefers to not answer questions that they don't have to answer.

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

#740

Post by phonon »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #736
dragonwriter wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, not only 9th circuit. Not even the 9th Circuit. For cases arising from thr 9th Cir., 9th Cir. case law binds the CAFC, not the other way around, on issues that are outside ofnthe subject-matter for which the CAFC has nationwide jurisdiction. > The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding nationwide No, it’s decisions are only binding nationwide on the issues within its special jurisdiction, which cop…

> issues within its special jurisdiction How are those issues defined?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1295
Post reply on HN