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

771–780 of 965 posts

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

#771

Post by kemitchell »

jacques_chester wrote: post #335
lisper wrote: post #311

Although I applaud the effect of this decision, I can't help but agree with Clarence Thomas that the reasoning behind it is not sound. It waffles back and forth between arguments for fair use and arguments that APIs are not (or at least should not be) copyrightable in the first place. You can't have it both ways. If APIs are copyrightable (and a plain reading of the text of the law appears to indicate that they are)…

> It waffles back and forth between arguments for fair use and arguments that APIs are not (or at least should not be) copyrightable in the first place. The precedential parts are unambiguous: Google's actions were fair use, as a matter of law (this is code to lower courts to not fuck around). The majority opinion did not answer whether APIs are copyrightable in the first place because it was unnecessary to settle th…

> The majority opinion did not answer whether APIs are copyrightable in the first place because it was unnecessary to settle the dispute.

They didn't answer it. They assumed it. They couldn't reach the fair uses analysis any other way. No copyright, no infringement, no need to assert affirmative defenses like fair use.

> In reviewing that [lower court] decision, we assume, for argument's sake, that the material was copyrightable.

> We shall assume, but purely for argument's sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copyrighted. We shall ask instead whether Google's use of part of that API was a "fair use."

You can call all dissents irrelevant if you like. But Thomas' dissent addressed the issue of the case, and arguably more directly than the majority's. The Federal Circuit decision on copyrightability, for which the Supreme Court denied cert, still stands. Its importance, not its rule, is called into question today.

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

#773

Post by tinus_hn »

WalterBright wrote: post #760
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…

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.

Microsoft had FrontPage create pages that crashed Netscape.

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

#774

Post by wtallis »

wnoise wrote: post #689
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's convoluted. Ninth Circuit courts held APIs weren't copyrightable. The Federal Circuit (which only had jurisdiction because of the thrown out patent claims) held that they were copyrightable. The majority of SCOTUS here explicitly said they weren't deciding copyright of APIs. Instead they looked at both cases and said: "either it isn't copyrightable, but even if it is copyrightable, that this is fair use." Either…

> So, effectively, APIs are copyrightable if there is a linked patent claim in the same lawsuit.

I suspect the Supreme Court would not be happy if a pattern develops where companies include spurious patent claims in order to get their copyright case heard by the Federal Circuit instead of one of the other circuits. They won't want another mess like this case, and if the Federal Circuit again rules in favor of API copyright and against fair use, I would expect the Supreme Court to rule on the API copyright question directly rather than merely clarify the bounds of fair use as in this case.

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

#775

Post by tylerhou »

crazypython wrote: post #626
tzs wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thomas may have phrased it badly, but his underlying point that declaring code in a program satisfies the 17 USC 101 definition of "computer program" seems sound. Declaring code in statement based languages is (1) a set of statements, is (2) used directly or indirectly in a computer, and it is used (3) to bring about a certain result. That hits all the points listed in 17 USC 101. This is trivial to prove. Take a pro…

Declaring statements are pure data. "int add(int, int);" is a piece of data, not a series of instructions. It may as well be a 4-tuple: (int, "add", int, int). You could convert each class declaration to a series of 4-tuples and put it in a CSV file. Database rights are much weaker than copyright. > Take a program that works and remove the declaring code. Actually, it will work just fine, because you the implementati…

I think this is a poor argument. I could make this "data" argument about any computer program, or even any copyrighted work. E.g. every statement is an n-tuple that could be stored in a database.

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

#776

Post by rodgerd »

InsaneOstrich wrote: post #286
jcranmer wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thomas's analysis pretty much starts from the conclusion that Google made billions off of Android, so therefore how could anything it be copied be fair use? He cloaks this analysis somewhat by arguing that the distinction between declaring and implementing code must be meaningless because Congress didn't lay it out explicitly in law, but for the person who actually broached the question of what other factors might in…

He probably owns a bunch of Oracle stock

If I were attributing bad faith to Thomas - and given that he ignores court norms on recusing himself, that doesn't seem like too much of a stretch - I would be more likely to ascribe to him a desire to see "liberal Silicon Valley" punished than anything else.

Thomas is an incredibly political beast, to the point that Scalia wrote him off as an unprincipled nutjob.

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

#777

Post by strenholme »

I am very glad to see this. Having a “you can abuse copyright to have proprietary control over an API” precedent on the books had a chilling effect for programmers.

Let me give you one example as an electronic musician. Once upon a time, Steinberg created an API for connecting programs which simulate musical instruments and musical effects (think reverb, echo, flanger, etc.) called VST. This API was always proprietary but everyone ending up using it, including the open source Audacity program which uses an open source re-implementation of the VST API, allowing it to use professional effects when editing tracks.

Well, Steinberg decided that VST2 — the one everyone has been using — was out of date and removed all downloads to the VST2 API, since they wanted users to upgrade to VST3. While a lot of professional music making tools have updated to VST3, others have not, and a lot of tools will never be updated. Steinberg no longer has a copy of the VST2 SDK available for download; they’re really trying to get everyone to update to VST3.

Now, with this horrible “Google vs. Oracle” precedent looming over everyone’s head that a company was allowed to copyright an API, Steinberg could had, in theory, said “VST2 is copyrighted, and Audacity is not allowed to use their own independent implementation of that API” (they didn’t in practice because they know it’s bad business; indeed VST3 is dual licensed, where GPL3 is one of the license options).

With this precedent, the Audacity team can more easily retain their independent implementation of VST2 knowing the legal precedent saying re-implementing an API is fair use.

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

#778

Post by waterheater »

wtallis wrote: post #754
waterheater wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It's generally about acceptable usage of "top-level" programming objects, of which an API is one.

A related concept which comes to mind is killing in self-defense. We may say killing is killing is killing, yet society acknowledges a limited set of circumstances where it becomes permissible. In both self-defense and this court case, the difference in permissibility is context within a broader system.

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

#779

Post by lisper »

dpifke wrote: post #368
lisper wrote: post #311

Although I applaud the effect of this decision, I can't help but agree with Clarence Thomas that the reasoning behind it is not sound. It waffles back and forth between arguments for fair use and arguments that APIs are not (or at least should not be) copyrightable in the first place. You can't have it both ways. If APIs are copyrightable (and a plain reading of the text of the law appears to indicate that they are)…

The purpose was clearly commercial, not educational or a parody. This is addressed in the decision on page 27. The Court wrote: The text of §107 includes various noncommercial uses, such as teaching and scholarship, as paradigmatic examples of privileged copying. There is no doubt that a finding that copying was not commercial in nature tips the scales in favor of fair use. But the inverse is not necessarily true, as…

> news reporting

Sure, but what that means is that I can do (say) movie reviews for profit and include clips from the film. It does not mean that I can re-broadcast the CBS Evening News with my own commercials.

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

#780

Post by gigatexal »

wtallis wrote: post #770
gigatexal wrote: post #735

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.

Copyright protection is not an automatic right that you're entitled to for anything you put effort into creating and want to make money off of. There are more specific requirements for what you need to do to secure copyright protection or patent protection, and there are limits on the exclusive rights those get you. "They worked hard on it and want to charge money for it" is not a sound argument.

Edit: I’m dumb. I need to read all of the ruling and then research what fair-use really means.

Again I’m not a lawyer and I know there’s nuance and precedent in the law I just am having a hard time with the seemingly obvious-ness of this case.

Some examples to share how I am thinking of this:

1. Procuring land, paying contractors, buying materials, etc., doesn’t entitle you to rents in perpetuity on say an apartment you build?

Or 2. if I produce music — until that music ages out and becomes a public good — and I own the masters and all the rights to it having put in the work and the time and the money etc., am I not entitled to all the fees from licensing it to be played and consumed?

I am having a hard time seeing how it’s not a sound argument given that it seems very clear that Sun Microsystems put in a lot of work and effort and time and money to get Java off the ground and here Google comes and copies it even when there was an easy way to get a license.

Post reply on HN