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

881–890 of 965 posts

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

#881

Post by luckylion »

coldtea wrote: post #699
luckylion wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Huh? For one, nothing stops you from saying you are the creator, and nobody would have any way to say you're not. Sure, just as nothing is stopping you from walking into a store, taking something, and walking out without paying. It's when you get caught doing so that the trouble beings. If you get caught, not only do you not get the copyright, but you've likely committed fraud. Proving that you're not the creator i…

> Sure, just as nothing is stopping you from walking into a store, taking something, and walking out without paying. Well, there is. If you get caught you get to jail. Whereas if you get "caught" saying this generated melody is your melody, nothing happens. It's a totally valid thing to copyright. (And even if it wasn't, unlike the store theft case, there's no way for anybody to tell and prove it's not yours anyway).…

> There's no rule "you can't copyright a generated melody".

If that was so, then no more melodies can be copyrighted after that group that was also mentioned somewhere else in the threads generated (essentially) all melodies, claimed copyright and then released them into the public domain. Alas, there is, even with people claiming copyright on individual generated melodies!

Again, I think the curation is relevant. You can certainly copyright a book, even though "it's somewhere in Pi". If you endlessly calculate fractions of Pi and check them for something interesting, I'm sure you can copyright whatever poem you find.

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

#883

Post by smokey_circles »

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…

>The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use

Because the federal courts already ruled that APIs are eligible for copyright [0].

Google wanted to overturn the ruling that they were in violation of copyright and argued they used Java's APIs fairly under copyright law.

The court will not answer questions not put to it, and Google (I presume) felt they had a better shot at getting the court to agree it was fair usage, rather than arguing copyright should not apply here.

0: https://www.paleudislaw.com/federal-circuit-rules-that-apis-...

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

#884

Post by fnord123 »

jychang wrote: post #870
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 - 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

Skype -> Whatsapp, Zoom

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

#885

Post by ece »

ece wrote: post #854
jcranmer wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ops, I meant to say s/APIs/software projects/ are copyrightable, as the question of copyrightable APIs within software projects was sidestepped by the court.

It's a lot easier to say what Google did was fair use than decide where to draw the line on where an API is in a software project and whether it is copyrightable or not.

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

#886

Post by sgift »

kemitchell wrote: post #756
bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

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…

> It's a great example because this is a case where the majority is obviously the "right" decision to any true code hacker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Have you spoken to any professional language or API designers about this case? Would all "true code hackers" agree that copyright shouldn't apply to software at all?

Obviously, I cannot say anything about "all" API designers, but I've read the opinions of a good few of them, including some who wrote the APIs in question here (i.e. the Java SE APIs), and they were unanimous that making APIs copyrightable would be a horrible idea.

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

#887

Post by hyperman1 »

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.

At that point(1989), the future was less clear-cut than Windows vs OS2. Windows was more a graphical shell for DOS than a real OS, and there were other graphical shells for DOS. From the top of my head: I vaguely remember GEM, I have used one from Tandy. There was something else installed on our school computers, Dynamic Environment or something . Windows before 3.0 (1990) was inferior to a lot of these DOS shells.

If the choice was between 2 options, 'both' might be a viable response. But 3 or more, especially with a market expectancy that everything DOS-based would disappear?

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

#888

Post by kaba0 »

burtonator wrote: post #625

Let's assume Google was in the wrong here - for the sake of argument. How would it been possible for Google to do this without just taking the API definitions. Could they have just use compiler errors?

Pay for the at the time not open license?

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

#889

Post by Silhouette »

rocqua wrote: post #720
rocqua wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, it is overriding copyright protection for a creative work that would otherwise apply. However, it does so because a greater good is served One could argue that this is for the judicial branch, not the legislative branch, to decide.

Sigh, I made a mistake mixing up the order of judicial and legislative in the sentence.

The main legal basis for the majority opinion seems to be fair use, so isn't the system operating as intended? The legislators set out a principle of fair use in statute. The court applied that principle in the context of this specific case.

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

#890

Post by kyberias »

curt15 wrote: post #665
hannasanarion wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a win for all open software. Torvalds and Stallman didn't ask Bell's permission before re-implementing Unix

Why was this comment downvoted? Does GNU/Linux not largely reimplement proprietary Unix?

Yes why? Doesn't it?
Post reply on HN