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

851–860 of 965 posts

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

#851

Post by unreal37 »

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.

They absolutely did sell their browser to enterprises. It was only free for personal use.

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

#852

Post by rrrazdan »

avs733 wrote: post #682
lostcolony wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but Thomas said "The majority can not square it's fundamentally flawed fair-use analysis with a finding that declaring code is copyrightable". Which is obviously false. A fair use analysis can -only- take place if the assumption is the code is copyrightable; if the majority had first decided the code was not copyrightable, fair use is immaterial. Thomas' argument, if followed, would either have led to this same…

Over the years, the STEM professional in me has become increasingly intrigued by the ways in which law progresses because it is so fundamentally different from my preferred method of making sense of the world. Within that, and with my incredibly limited understanding of how law evolves in the courts...it seems like Thomas says demonstrably incorrect things more frequently than I am comfortable with.

Interesting. In my very limited understanding I have a very opposite view, specifically around Justice Thomas.

If you read pdonis’s reply to your parent, you will see that Thomas was rather correct in the way law should have applied in this case. I find that in the limited few of few cases I have read , I politically like the judgement made but I identify more with how Thomas thought about the case.

Really fascinated by the American legal system. In some ways really elegant and so much better than the legal system in my own country.

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

#854

Post by ece »

jcranmer wrote: post #220
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 noticed that comment too early on. Breyer's opinion comes pretty close to saying "it's at best 'thin copyright'" but the fact that it's explicitly disclaimed makes me think that this is to some extent a compromise position: rather than arguing about whether SSO is copyrightable and risk a bigger split, just concede it because the fair use is sufficient here.

That's exactly why fair use exists. A teacher showing a movie in class is fair use, editing a clip for memes is fair use, making backups is fair use. APIs are copyrightable, but independent implementations are fair use, this is an outright win IMO. SSO might or might not be copyrightable in all of these cases, but we have certainty with fair use for specific cases.

In deference to OP, the question was never "Are APIs copyrightable?" The question was is what Google did in taking header information and doing their own implementation fair use, and it's unquestionably good now that the SCOTUS said this is fair use. Make sure to actually do your own implementation though.

Sun/Oracle didn't want to fragment Java, they copyrighted the language spec, and provided the JVM under SCSL before GPL. Java isn't fragmented, Sun/Oracle got what they wanted.

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

#855

Post by redis_mlc »

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…

> Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty

The court mentioned "creativity or beauty" because US copyright was originally about artistic originality before the widened application for software.

So what the court is saying is that the copied lines are not substantial and also not creative enough to infringe on the original work.

I don't see that mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

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

#856

Post by gorgoiler »

lostcolony wrote: post #243
VikingCoder wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, when the code allows an exploit, that's a bug. Thomas is supposed to help us understand the intent of the code - what the Requirement was. Yes, it's better for us if the code reflects the intent perfectly. But to the degree that's not possible, we need someone to Interpret the code. Textualists are trying to ignore the fact that there's a difference between intent and implementation. The Legislature should do a f…

Tangent, but you said something I find really telling, in conjunction with OP's post. Textualism to its proponents is very much like exploiting a system; figuring out the exact rules it defines and finding workarounds. It may not even be to a person's own goals (hence the individual not feeling biased when thinking this way), but is enjoyable in its own right in finding those loopholes (like the meme of the referee a…

...sic that most American of phrases, getting off on a technicality.

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

#857

Post by dragonwriter »

WalterBright wrote: post #758
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…

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 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

That’s...optimistic. The transition to GUIs undermined a major hold they had, which was user-familiarity-lock-in. That transition was going to be an opening no matter what, especially for a competitor that also controlled the platform that won out underneath the application.

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

#858

Post by ece »

grumple wrote: post #747
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 think the focus on fair use is even better. It means that EVEN IF you can copyright the API, it doesn't matter because others can reimplement it. So not only can corps not stop that, but courts might rule later that the copyrights are totally invalid.

Exactly this, the same protection that memers have in editing content (but not copying the full implementation), software engineers now have too thanks to fair use.

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

#859

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

sn_master wrote: post #602
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft extended the JDK with VisualJ++, by introducing their COM based version of JNI. They claimed that the result was the same thing; now Google reimplemented the JDK while keeping the same API. that makes a subtle difference. I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft were to have sold VisualJ++ as 'Microsoft JDK'.

The problem was, code written for J++ wouldn't run on "regular" Java outside of Windows, effectively killing the cross-platform aspect of Java and turning it into another Visual Basic.

that's what i meant: by naming it a windows jdk they would not imply to be cross platform. they could then argue that they implemented the same sdk for their platform only. (interesting if Oracle tried to argue that the same logic should apply in this case too).

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

#860

Post by selimthegrim »

zucker42 wrote: post #379
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…

It's also good that Breyer wrote this opinion, given that he was one of the two judges who dissented in Eldred v. Ashcroft almost 20 years ago[1]. Lessig called that opinion "perhaps the best opinion [Breyer] has ever written"[2] in his retrospective on the case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft [2] https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_l...

Were there any Breyer counterfactuals?
Post reply on HN