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

81–90 of 965 posts

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

#81

Post by kyrra »

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…

Thomas's dissent explicitly points this out. Without diving into "are APIs copyrightable?", the majority are skipping what should have been evaluated first before saying if they were fair-use or not.

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

#82

Post by pm90 »

javajosh wrote: post #40

Does anyone have a good estimate of what this case cost Oracle and Google, especially in terms of legal fees, and where that money went ultimately?

The money goes into lawyers fees.

Because of the way this decision went, I’m sure Google considers it a worthy investment and Oracle considers it a temporary setback as it pursues other extortion schemes using Sun’s Patents. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a specific division of lawyers dedicated to finding novel ways of extorting wealth using Patents; this would likely just be one of the cases they were working on.

Come to think of it, from Oracles perspective it was definitely worth a shot, to throw a few millions (if that?) with a chance of winning billions.

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

#83

Post by bryanlarsen »

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 this is a great example to smack hackers with when they try and "hack" the law, treating it like code rather than something more human. It's a great example because this is a case where the majority is obviously the "right" decision to any true code hacker.

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

#84

Post by abhv »

abhv wrote: post #21

Which of Breyer's clerks drafted this? They clearly understand many tech issues and I hope they find their place on some Federal circuit to herald an era of logic in tech law. "Google’s limited copying of the API is a transformative use. Google copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different computing environment without discarding a portion of a familiar programming language. Google’s purpose…

UPDATE: based on Wikipedia [1], the "API" was likely saved by one of these people (all likely in their mid-20s!):

Emily Barnet, 2020, Yale (2015)

Diana Li Kim, 2020, Yale (2017)

Arjun Ramamurti, 2020, Yale (2018)

Daniel Richardson, 2020, Virginia (2018)

Brittany Jones-Record, 2020, Stanford (2016)

David Scott Louk, 2020, Yale (2015)

Elizabeth B. Deutsch, 2021, Yale (2016)

Joel F. Wacks, 2021, Chicago (2018)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supr...

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

#86

Post by curt15 »

"On the other hand, Google’s copying helped Google makea vast amount of money from its Android platform. And enforcement of the Sun Java API copyright might give Oracle a significant share of these funds. It is important, how-ever, to consider why and how Oracle might have become entitled to this money. When a new interface, like an API or a spreadsheet program, first comes on the market, it may attract new users because of its expressive qualities, such as a better visual screen or because of its superior functionality. As time passes, however, it may be valuable for a different reason, namely, because users, including programmers, are just used to it. They have already learned how to work with it. See Lotus Development Corp., 49 F. 3d, at 821 "

Interesting to see SCOTUS citing Lotus v Borland, which was originally deadlocked at 4-4 (although Breyer seems to have voted in favour of Lotus back then). Does this elevate the precedential value of Lotus?

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

#87

Post by Silhouette »

From a quick scan, the majority opinion here seems reasonable. I suspect it is what almost everyone working in programming would have considered the "right" answer.

The dissent is worrying, though. For a pivotal case that would have had a profound adverse effect on the future of software development had it been decided the other way, there seemed to be a disturbing lack of appreciation of the fundamental issues in play, particularly the practical reasons that programmers separate interface and implementation and the implications of this for interoperability.

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

#88

Post by gjsman-1000 »

flumpcakes wrote: post #76
zzleeper wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not surprised at all the Thomas and Alito are in that dissent..

I was under the impression that a dissent has to be written, even if they all agree in the majority opinion/ruling?

You also forget that a justice might feel more comfortable with ruling in opposition so that he/she can write the dissent, but if his/her vote was a swing vote, the justice might have second thoughts about that. It's easy to vote in opposition when you know it doesn't matter - and then, hey, you get to write the position for the losing side.

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

#89

Post by Spivak »

mindcrime wrote: post #39
curt15 wrote: post #25

"(e) The fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technological world." So the opinion effectively preserves the status quo in the software industry while sidestepping the question of API copyrightability.

True, but it's such a strong precedent in favor of copying API's being "fair use" that it at least partly moots the more general question of "are API's copyrightable in the first place." I think this was a good decision all in all. AIUI, the SCOTUS try to limit the scope of their decisions as much as possible, to avoid over-generalization.

I don’t think it moots the point at all.

* Google’s API copying can’t be fair use if they weren’t copyrightable in the first place.

* If you do copy an API because of it’s beauty and not for either interoperability with software or interoperability with developers then it seems that you would run afoul of copyright.

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

#90

Post by TinoDidriksen »

oconnor663 wrote: post #38
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…

Question from a layman: Does "interoperability" as a concept have any legal relevance here? Like focusing on programmer skills seems kind of beside the point, which is really for two pieces of software to be able to interoperate.

Yes, reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is one of the things explicitly allowed by laws such as DMCA.
Post reply on HN