Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#751

Post by BoorishBears » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:12 PM UTC

dlubarov wrote: post #433

BoorishBears wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad for the verdict but this is such bullshit. Google implemented exactly enough to create the illusion of letting people use their Java talents then dragged their feet with a half broken out-of-date language environment. And they did all this to save money, not some sort of noble rebellion or clever hack. > Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. Schmidt said Google would have paid for tha…

Can you be more specific about the differences your talking about? As far as I'm aware, Google never added their own features to the language itself. Granted, they were a bit slow to support new versions like Java 8. They also chose not to support libraries like awt, but I wouldn't consider those part of the Java language; rather they're part of Java SE.

I already mentioned multiple above.

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

#752

Post by pfdietz » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #742

pfdietz wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/05/overlapping-protecting-...

Generally, a comment such as this should also include some words from you about what kind of point you're trying to make by referring to the longer work. I think you're trying to use this blog post as evidence that patent and copyright protection are mutually exclusive, but from skimming this post it seems to only say that they should be mutually exclusive, while the Federal Circuit apparently disagrees. So at the ve…

The blog post presents legal arguments why (with existing SCOTUS rulings) they should be considered separate. I could repeat all that, or just ask you to read it.

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

#753

Post by martin1975 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

I hate analogies... but will use one here... 'copying' an API, to me is a bit like copying the look&feel of a product. There used to be similar lawsuits alleging 'look and feel' violations awhile back between Microsoft and whomever (I don't recall anymore), most if not all of these bombed. If Google had lost this one, then the next step would be copyrighting a typedef-ed struct with "proprietary" Google data in it...

I am not a huge fan of Google's antics in general, but in this case, I am glad they won.

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

#754

Post by wtallis » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

waterheater wrote: post #734

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 imple…

This case is about declaration of functions/methods, not variables.

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

#755

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

shemnon42 wrote: post #749

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So in programmer speak if (!isFairUse(workUnderInvestigation) && copyrightable(originalWork)) { bigCopyrightPayout(); } Short circuit on the and operator. It's fair use, so copyrightable will not be evaluated. Evaluating copyrightable has an obervable side effect of creating a precedent.

Yes, exactly that. Why do the && in that order? Because isFairUse(workUnderInvestigation) was a much less expensive operation than copyrightable(originalWork) for this particular value of originalWork.

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

#756

Post by kemitchell » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

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…

> It's a great example because this is a case where the majority is obviously the "right" decision to any true code hacker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Have you spoken to any professional language or API designers about this case? Would all "true code hackers" agree that copyright shouldn't apply to software at all?

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

#757

Post by nullifidian » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

curt15 wrote: post #713

nullifidian wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 A…

Yes, but the situation is a bit different -- the majority of UNIX rights owners were actually promoting open standards through initiatives like POSIX, X/Open, so the re-implementation did not violate the copyright. As far as I know SCO's suits were not about interfaces of any kind, and the Linux kernel uses C standard library and other posix compliant libraries as an interface.

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

#758

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

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…

Lotus' failure was more because they failed to port to Windows, betting instead on OS/2.

Lotus was at a crossroads. DOS was obsolete, was the future OS/2 or Windows? They chose OS/2.

Lotus was a big, cash rich company at the time. Their fatal error was not realizing they should have ported 1-2-3 to both OS/2 and Windows. Then they would have been secure regardless of which prevailed.

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

#759

Post by ghaff » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #681

sprayk wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slow legislation is a feature rather than a bug. Less opportunity for reactionary laws based on emotion or a collective misunderstanding of events that we later regret. It's not a perfect deterrent, obviously, e.g. the Patriot Act

Cipyright law needed reform for like 40 years. Thre is slow, and there is dysfunctional

However, the main reform that people are asking for is a shortening of copyright terms which really isn't a factor that plays into this case or, for the most part, with computer software generally. One can imagine copyright reform that broadly and explicitly exempts interfaces from at least copyright protection but that has generally not been one of the top issues historically.

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

#760

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:25 PM UTC

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…

Netscape went out of business because their browser crashed far more frequently than Explorer. I've heard all the sob stories, but I was sick of the constant crashing of Netscape, and so tried Explorer. Explorer crashed too, but not nearly as often.