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

791–800 of 965 posts

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

#791

Post by ekianjo »

pfdietz wrote: post #489
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…

Making APIs copyrightable is a GOOD thing. It means they aren't patentable.

It's not an either/or.

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

#792

Post by rodgerd »

throwaway3699 wrote: post #147
thedevelopnik wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the opportunity once to talk to an IP lawyer for Oracle and brought this up. I specifically brought up the S3 compatibility of their cloud storage among other instances. His reply was “without admitting anything specific, how do you know we haven’t purchased private licenses for anything you just mentioned?”

It's still silly. Imagine if you needed to purchase a license for the shape of plug that fits inside a standard plug socket - to build any appliance.

Plenty of good, cheap DACs built in China (e.g. Topping) have an HDMI-shaped plug (IIS) that supports PCM-over-not-HDMI which happens to be compatible with HDMI sources, but don't dare mention HDMI because they don't want to pull in an interlocking, price-gouging nonsense from the US entertainment industry.

So you don't quite need a license for the shape of the plug, but you do need to pretend it's not something that it is.

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

#793

Post by wslack »

1980phipsi wrote: post #297
tantalor wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument from the text could go the other way: Congress didn't mention declarative code in the copyright act, so it's not included.

Thomas says the copyright act says any computer code called directly or indirectly. The Thomas argument is that this is an indirect use of code.

Which, I would argue, is out of step with how that language was understood at the time the legislation was drafted.

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

#794

Post by iamcreasy »

iamcreasy wrote: post #508
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…

I suppose Supreme court decision over this matter sets precedence for any future cases.

Why the downvote? You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

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

#795

Post by kibwen »

mceachen wrote: post #764
WalterBright wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FWIW, Netscape got bought out by AOL, but not before it spun off Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape It may be hard to believe, but the first iteration of Internet Explorer on Macintosh (back on System 8) was __solid__. IE, at least on PowerMacs, was way faster and more reliable than either NCSA Mosaic or Navigator.

Hell, AOL still runs Netscape as a discount ISP, same logo since 1999 and everything: https://isp.netscape.com

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

#796

Post by wslack »

jessriedel wrote: post #712
andomar wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 the…

I think the intent is usually found in statements made by drafters of the legislative language. Intent is not packaged in the raw text of statute.

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

#797

Post by shemnon42 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #755
shemnon42 wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is the order scotus considered it.

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

#798

Post by thaumasiotes »

anamexis wrote: post #716
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> both React and Preact are MIT licensed.

Huh, I had no idea the React license wasn't still "you're free to use React unless you ever assert a patent against Facebook".

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

#799

Post by gamblor956 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #463
gamblor956 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To use your Harry Potter comparison, it would be like asserting that Magic Boy Adventures violates Harry Potter's copyright because one of the characters in MBA was similar to the Neville Longbottom. Or in other words, a tiny fraction of the original work would essentially be allowed to monopolize the entire space of works involving magical kids going to school. (And this is why Justice Thomas is widely regarded as t…

Incorrect, because as Justice Thomas states, the "heart" of the work being copied is at issue, not a given percentage. Neville Longbottom is obviously not the "heart" of what a Harry Potter book is. Presumably the issue would be if one wrote a book substantially about the same character as Harry Potter who went through the same plot events in significant detail, but only 0.4% of the sentences were identical and the m…

Incorrect, because the "heart" of the work is not being copied, and therefore, the entirety of Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion is just pointless blathering.

Thomas would allow copyright on code regardless of any creativity. This would destroy the software industry. Anyone who is first in time would monopolize entire swaths of software functionality.

And that is what he wants. Thomas is an ideologue, and his sole goal in allowing the copyrighting of code is to destroy the tech industry, which he views as hostile to Republicans. You can see it in the logic of his dissent, which would require the court to override decades of settled case law all supporting the proposition that code and other functional expression. In order to justify his nonsensical arguments, Thomas is forced to come up with an entirely new category of code that is not supported by legislative history or judicial history. Thomas' only justification for this category is...that it's "not fair" to a multi-billion dollar company that the non-copyrightable portions of their code were copied by another corporation. Pity the poor multi-billion dollar corporation, they just can't ever get a break.

Even he notes that his dissent is nonsensical when he admits "declaring code is 'inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas.'

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

#800

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> Doesn't deciding that it's fair use specifically mean that they think it is copyrightable?

No, deciding it would be Fair Use even if it was copyrightable means you can cutoff the process considering copyright.

(Its perhaps useful to think of legal cases as consisting of a set of parallel questions connected by logic operators—once enough of them are resolved to reach a decision which no resolution on the others will change, the process is free to conclude without waiting for the others to be resolved.)

Post reply on HN