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

831–840 of 965 posts

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

#831

Post by Natanael_L »

marc__1 wrote: post #333

Oracle's response[1]: "The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater — the barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower. They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can. This behavior is exactly why regulatory authorities around the world and in the United States are examining Google's business practices." - Dorian Daley, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,…

The irony is that what they claim happened is instead what would have happened only if the case was resolved in the opposite direction. Everybody having to pay for API licenses for absolutely everything would be disastrous. The gridlock would be insane.

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

#832

Post by cloudwizard »

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.

Netscape was not selling their browser so that did not matter. I worked at a startup that used their server. We wanted to pay for it but they would not invoice us. Just sending money without an invoice would have been a donation. I sat for hours on their customer support line trying to get an invoice but they never sent one until they went out of business.

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

#833

Post by sriku »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #239
sriku wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it makes sense from the perspective of copyright law, which protects artifacts. After all, one could say the same for quoting from a famous literary work .."ha now they're valuing literature in terms of number of words of prose!"

The dissent clearly highlights the fallacy of the ruling, where it discussed the importance of the "heart" of the work, rather than the portion of exact lines copied. Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter.

"Harry Potter and the methods of rationality" - affly known as HPMOR - https://www.hpmor.com/

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

#834

Post by sriku »

jayd16 wrote: post #348
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dissent clearly highlights the fallacy of the ruling, where it discussed the importance of the "heart" of the work, rather than the portion of exact lines copied. Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter.

>Aka, that you could clone Harry Potter's plot, characters, and story while not copying each word of the book verbatim, and it still be a copy of Harry Potter. Would that be a copyright infringement? Probably just trademark infringement at that point?

Would it violate copyright to take a painting's colour palette and produce a different work with it?

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

#835

Post by astrange »

jcranmer wrote: post #306
InsaneOstrich wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He probably owns a bunch of Oracle stock

Justices routinely recuse themselves if they own stock in a company arguing before the court.

Note, a lot of these "x legislator owns y stock" stories actually turn out to mean "x legislator owns a whole market index fund".

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

#837

Post by TeeMassive »

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

Also what people fails to realize with fair use is that it is up to the defendant raise a fair use defense and then a judge has to approve of that defense as a valid one (Viva Frei explains this https://youtu.be/AzQz1LrjCWk?t=253 ).Meaning Oracle can still go on with its lawfare campaign against those who made the mistake of basing their tech on theirs.

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

#838

Post by dmitryminkovsky »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #719
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…

It's one thing to steal algorithms but for interoperability to remain possible it is necessary for API to remain "fair use". I can't agree with you that this is a bad thing for them to copy Java SE interfaces.

I understand we can’t have copyrights on APIs, but something about it just doesn't feel "fair" to me, though.

Fair use makes sense to me when you're talking about the table of contents of a book. If I take the table of contents of a famous novel and write my own chapters, it makes sense to me that the owners of that book shouldn't be able to sue me. No one is going to read my book instead of Faulkner's. There's no equivalency there.

If I take an API (the table of contents equivalent of software), that's seems totally different, if not the opposite really: the interface is what matters, and the implementation is secondary. If you apply the analogy to a novel, it's as if I took the table of contents of a famous novel, write my own chapters, and it'll be equivalent to the famous novel. My chapters could be slightly "worse", but readers wouldn't necessarily notice a difference between my version or Faulkner's.

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

#839

Post by wtallis »

TeeMassive wrote: post #837
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 Also what people fails to realize with fair use is that it is up to the defendant raise a fair use defense and then a judge has to approve of that defense as a valid one (Viva Frei explains this https://youtu.be/AzQz1LrjCWk?t=253 ).Meaning Oracle can still go on with its lawfare…

Oracle would have to come up with new patent claims in order to get another case before the Federal Circuit, which is their best (only?) hope for having their API copyright claims upheld.

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

#840

Post by kbrisso »

cloudwizard wrote: post #832
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.

Netscape was not selling their browser so that did not matter. I worked at a startup that used their server. We wanted to pay for it but they would not invoice us. Just sending money without an invoice would have been a donation. I sat for hours on their customer support line trying to get an invoice but they never sent one until they went out of business.

I worked on Netscape Enterprise Server it had JavaScript as the scripting language. Did you work on that? Before NodeJS....
Post reply on HN