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

861–870 of 965 posts

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

#861

Post by mattkrause »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #846
mattkrause wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that’s correct. Copyright attaches to the actual text (illustrations, etc; whatever is “fixed in a tangible form”), not the ideas. You could write a story about a boy of humble origins who is whisked off to a special school, discovers he’s special, and fights evil. There aren’t that many original plots, after all.... You’ll only get into trouble if the main character is called Harry Potter of 10 Privett Driv…

Copyright covers derivative works. If a story is plainly the same with names changed, the original copyright extends to it. This can be applied to the point of absurdity in music copyrights.

The derivative work has to be literally derived from the original "such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." (per 17 USC 101). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101

The merger and scenes a faire doctrine permit lots of overlap in terms of themes, tropes and set dressing. You could certainly write a coming-of-age story set in a magical boarding school; indeed, Harry Potter is neither the first nor the last such novel. One of the classic cases is Walker v. Time Life. The two works, which were found to be non-infringing, both start with a double murder of two cops (one Black, one white) in the South Bronx, both feature demoralized Irish-American cops, and both have similar tropes (rats, cop-talk, etc). A reviewer might reasonably describe it as derivative (and a few did, I think), but not legally so.

What you probably couldn't do is publish the (non-parodic) story of Perry Hotter and his substantially-similar adventures at Pigworts, though that's also absolutely spoiling for a trademark fight.

Music gets weird because it a) seems like there are a lot of possible note sequences but b) there aren't really.

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

#862

Post by arduinomancer »

chmod600 wrote: post #847
arduinomancer wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 11,500 lines is the API interface, so just the function/class signatures. They _did_ do a cleanroom implementation, that's the whole issue that makes it an interesting case: are APIs fair use?

Why did it have to be a verbatim copy rather than just a very similar API spec?

Because you wouldn’t be able to run your existing Java code on their VM?

The whole point was interoperability

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

#863

Post by alasdair_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #786
tinus_hn wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had FrontPage create pages that crashed Netscape.

Netscape crashing on a web page is Netscape's fault. Similarly, if the D compiler crashes when compiling a D source file, it's the D core team's fault.

If the people that make the OS whose APIs you are reliant on, are also the ones trying to make your code crash, I'd bet most of us would end up with crashing code.

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

#864

Post by lmm »

pdonis wrote: post #825
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…

> 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 You are not disputing Thomas's point; you are agreeing with it. Thomas's point was exactly that, before even embarking on a fair use analysis, the Court should have…

Why would the court be obliged to reason front to back? Surely this is no different from e.g. "the defendant had adequate grounds for killing in self-defence, so there is no need to examine whether they intended to kill the victim".

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

#866

Post by anonytrary »

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…

Yeah it sounds like they were being sued over building a compatibility layer. That's nuts. Good thing the right decision was made :)

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

#867

Post by Gaelan »

jolux wrote: post #821
hnick wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's still a long time! You try being two years later to a major market than Microsoft and still beating them. How often has that happened?

Windows Mobile/iOS? Arguably Office and Google Docs.

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

#868

Post by jolux »

Gaelan wrote: post #867
jolux wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a long time! You try being two years later to a major market than Microsoft and still beating them. How often has that happened?

Windows Mobile/iOS? Arguably Office and Google Docs.

Google Docs was released 20 years after Office, after Office had already killed all the rest of its competition in the early 90s.

iOS is a good example though. Windows Mobile had not yet come to dominate the market.

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

#869

Post by Natsu »

lmm wrote: post #864
pdonis wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 You are not disputing Thomas's point; you are agreeing with it. Thomas's point was exactly that, before even embarking on a fair use analysis, the Court should have…

Why would the court be obliged to reason front to back? Surely this is no different from e.g. "the defendant had adequate grounds for killing in self-defence, so there is no need to examine whether they intended to kill the victim".

This is more like deciding whether there was a murder to begin with before deciding it was self-defense.

The thing is that fair use implies the underlying data was copyrighted, but something being copyrighted doesn't imply fair use, which is why I think your analysis is backwards.

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

#870

Post by jychang »

jolux wrote: post #821
hnick wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's still a long time! You try being two years later to a major market than Microsoft and still beating them. How often has that happened?

Windows Mobile - iPhone Tablet PC - iPad Internet Explorer - Google Chrome MSN Messenger - Facebook Messenger, iMessage, etc Microsoft Band - Apple Watch Zune Pass (2006) - Spotify (2009, 2011), Apple Music, etc Skype - Zoom Hotmail - Gmail
Post reply on HN