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

811–820 of 965 posts

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

#811

Post by ascar »

VikingCoder wrote: post #412
flyingfences wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. I would say that they are not so much trying to ignore the fact as acknowledging the fact but taking the position that it the court's role to interpret the implementation, not to guess at the intent.

The legislature can't fix all bugs. Case Law exists for a very good reason.

Case law doesn't exist in a majority of the world and somehow these legal systems work nonetheless, in at least some instances even arguably better.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_syste...

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

#812

Post by scomp »

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…

What about Microsoft J# or Microsoft J++? A directly relatable example.

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

#813

Post by gamblor956 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #810
gamblor956 wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

> Pity the poor multi-billion dollar corporation, they just can't ever get a break. This would sound like a convincing position if the company abusing them wasn't a trillionaire corporation. Oracle is literally "the little guy" here.

Now their positions are greatly reversed. But at the time of the copying in 2005, Oracle was many times Googles' size.

This case began in 2010 as Oracle attempting to smother a similarly sized competitor...after Oracle acquired the actual creators of Java.

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

#814

Post by Natanael_L »

gnopgnip wrote: post #677
kyrra wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

APIs and most code is copyrightable, they are original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium, all that is required by he Copyright Act of 1976. It doesn't look like either party in this case claimed the code was not eligible for copyright either If they shouldn't be copyrightable because the world would be better off, interoperability between business is harmed, it is up to congress to change the law. Histor…

How often does the API itself exceed the level of creativity of uncopyrightable plain lists of facts? It's not clear to me that it should be considered copyrightable on its own, especially with the fact that copyright explicitly do not cover functional elements. The declarations only instructs you on how to interact with the actual code, and AFAICT rarely add any creative height on top of what's in the main source code.

If presence and order of keywords was sufficient, such legal precedence would create collateral damage at levels that is beyond absurd - outside of software, this would extend to atypical calendar formats, plenty of paper forms, automatic telephone voice menus, map projections, and so much more. Calling it "destructive" wouldn't suffice. Entire industries would be leveled by uncooperative rent seekers that hold old copyrights.

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

#815

Post by sjwright »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #801
shemnon42 wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the order scotus considered it.

Right, and that's why SCOTUS considered it in that order. Deciding API copyright was a much bigger decision than deciding fair use.

A shame, because as test cases go that wouldn’t have been a terrible one.

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

#816

Post by __d »

hnick wrote: post #803
WalterBright wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lotus 1-2-3 was on Windows so I think I am missing some context here around version differences?

Timing, IIRC. Lotus was late to Windows, opening the door for Excel.

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

#817

Post by gabereiser »

saalweachter wrote: post #344
gabereiser wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2021 and I still come across managers that use this as a metric.

It may be a poor metric, but it's not like we have any other metrics to measure code by. Well, "dollars / year", if you work in an industry where you can directly A-B test against revenue, but I think most of us are happiest not knowing whether our particular lines of code are EV-positive.

we absolutely have other metrics. Features, Stories, Ease-of-use, Dev Friendly, Qualitive Value. LoC is simply broadcasting how complex either A) the problem is (fair) or B) how you've made it (not fair) - most fall into the latter camp.

Code bases like kubernetes come to mind for LoC far exceeding its value. Code bases like Quake3 come to mind for LoC that provide tremendous value. Every line is an explicit decision to improve the code or make it worse.

Refactoring a system to be generic and re-usable, for example, would reduce LoC yet provide tremendous value. If I were her manager, would I deduct points for -2000 LoC? Would I praise her for taking copy-pasta and making a pattern? I know which I'd choose.

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

#818

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

mbesto wrote: post #743
dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad about this outcome, because I agree the other outcome would have had a devastating effect on software development. I also appreciate this fair use argument, especially when you point out the code in question was 0.4% of the entire API. Still, I'll always struggle with the idea that "the amount and substantiality of the portion used" when copying an interface is comparable to copying an implementation. The in…

> especially when you point out the code in question was 0.4% of the entire API. Honestly, the fact that it's 0.4% is a BS heuristic. What if they spent a year and all they did was refactor the code so that codebase was 1.43 million lines instead of 2.86? Would that mean these lines of code are 2x as powerful? Lines of code is an indicative heuristic, but not a deterministic one.

I think they took "line" to refer to a Java method signature/prototype, so even if a method signature has each parameter wrapped to its own physical line on-disk, the whole method declaration still counts as "one line".

...at least I hope that's what they did.

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

#820

Post by hnick »

__d wrote: post #816
hnick wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lotus 1-2-3 was on Windows so I think I am missing some context here around version differences?

Timing, IIRC. Lotus was late to Windows, opening the door for Excel.

Yeah it seems to be 1989 v 1991 based on the wiki but it also sounds like there might be some version differences. 2 years was a long time back then.
Post reply on HN