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

941–950 of 965 posts

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

#941

Post by Talanes »

collinmanderson wrote: post #909
mceachen wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, Netscape got bought out by AOL, but not before it spun off Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape It may be hard to believe, but the first iteration of Internet Explorer on Macintosh (back on System 8) was __solid__. IE, at least on PowerMacs, was way faster and more reliable than either NCSA Mosaic or Navigator.

> Netscape got bought out by AOL That makes it sound like Netscape had no say in the matter. Netscape sold itself to AOL.

"Bought out" is a common enough way to describe any company sale. "Sold itself" introduces way more unnecessary sub-textual baggage just by being a more unusual construction.

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

#942

Post by chouchinhua »

jcranmer wrote: post #509

A summary for those who don't want to read the entire thing: This case was originally granted back in 2019. It was scheduled for oral argument in March 2020, but was postponed at the last moment until October because of the pandemic. Being postponed at the last moment, it was fully briefed well over a year ago, and the justices likely knew how they would rule in the case for a long time. (It's unclear how much of an…

This is a pretty good summary of the philosophical difference between Thomas's and Breyer's view of copyright.

I'll add that Thomas points out that if Breyer wants to talk about "thin" copyright, he should have discussed it within the copyrightability context, not skirting and discussing it in the "fair use" segment. If Breyer does so, Thomas argues, Breyer would find that "thin" copyright is still copyright, and Google will have no argument left to support fair use. All the remaining facts (such as competition, loss royalty, etc.) would support non-fair use.

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

#943

Post by dllthomas »

pdonis wrote: post #934
dragonwriter wrote: post #930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By arguing that your usage was fair use, you are admitting to copyright infringement. No, its actually fairly common to argue both that an act wasn’t infringement but, if it was, it would be fair use. One way you might do this is to argue that the thing copied was outside the scope of copyright, bur then argue that, if it was covered by copyright, it would be fair use. That was, in fact, Google’s argument in this v…

Your honor, I will show that (1) my client never received the Ming vase from the plaintiff, (2) he returned it in perfect condition, and (3) it was already cracked when he got it. I agree such arguments are fairly common, but that doesn't make them any less fishy, in my view.

http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html

Where there are contradictory assertions of fact in the various defenses, I agree there's something... uncomfortable about it, at least.

But I don't think that applies in a case like "it's fair use, anyway." If we imagine a case where someone copied a small bit of written material for criticism or educational purposes, something clearly fair use, introducing uncertainty about whether the document had been placed in the public domain doesn't cloud the question of whether the behavior was okay, and answering the question in the easier way doesn't force any conclusions about the other matter.

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

#944

Post by Natanael_L »

gnopgnip wrote: post #841
Natanael_L wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

The threshold of originality is extremely low for a work to be considered a work of authorship. From the linked decision, " a work is “original” if it is “independently created by the author” and “possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U. S. 340, 345 (1991). The lines of declaring code in the Java platform readily satisfy this “extremely low…

Re forms: I did primarily mean rather simple ones (like say attendance forms), but there's a bigger argument here;

This type of API copyright would post likely not just mean the paper form is under copyright protection, but that the software to OCR scan it and parse it would also likewise be protected - as it is an ordered series of keywords with types, etc. It would then be a license infringement to parse forms without a license.

Independent creation is legal defense, not a cause for dismissal of a suit. You need to prove it - which becomes harder if they can argue you saw their work first and imitated theirs.

There's precedence where people have created their own works from scratch and held to be infringing because they mimicked an existing work too closely (like one case of a photo of a red London bus), and in civil copyright lawsuits the other copyright holder only needs to show its likely, which may reduce to showing you knew their work existed.

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

#945

Post by bryanrasmussen »

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…

Can any of those companies copying APIs in the past be sued now due to this precedent?

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

#946

Post by sizt »

jhanschoo wrote: post #374
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…

> That said, this case does establish a precedent that if your copying of an API is primarily for purposes of matching an interface so that developers can reimplement it, you're in fair use territory: >> Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment. It's even weaker than you think. It was im…

It's called opcodes. AMD has been copying Intel's opcodes for decades. Just like Oracle copied IBM's SQL commands. This lawsuit was a sham from the beginning. Larry Ellison should be ashamed of himself for bringing it in the first place. If Oracle had won, AT&T could have sued Oracle to remove all C language commands from the Oracle DB source code. Larry was genuinely stupid to sue Google over the Java "API" in addition to being a world-class hypocrite.

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

#947

Post by sizt »

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.

The current Supreme Court obviously thinks SSO is poor law. Without SSO, this whole lawsuit should have been dismissed, since "words and short phrases" are NOT copyrightable (only trademarkable) BY FEDERAL STATUTE.

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

#948

Post by skinkestek »

nullifidian wrote: post #565
Frost1x wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's always been a threat. If a large business decides to target an area you develop a system for, you're basically out of luck unless you have some novel IP that's difficult to replicate. You really have to have something niche, patent it, etc. otherwise you just roll the dice that massive entity X doesn't steamroll your livelihood out of business.

Well, before this decision in a situation like this you would at least be able to retain your existing customers who are already invested in your platform, due to API incompatibilities etc, but with the ability to painlessly re-implement platforms the large business would take your existing customers too, and reuse the platform momentum that you've built.

So companies would have to compete on pricing, availability, customer service etc etc instead of by being first to create lock in?

Seems like a net benefit to me :-)

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

#949

Post by nullifidian »

skinkestek wrote: post #948
nullifidian wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, before this decision in a situation like this you would at least be able to retain your existing customers who are already invested in your platform, due to API incompatibilities etc, but with the ability to painlessly re-implement platforms the large business would take your existing customers too, and reuse the platform momentum that you've built.

So companies would have to compete on pricing, availability, customer service etc etc instead of by being first to create lock in? Seems like a net benefit to me :-)

It stifles innovation and rewards big business. Why risk developing something if it will be taken from you? A winner-take-all kind of situation. It leaves little room for the platform's authors to generate revenue other then hiring themselves to said big business, and probably at depressed rates.

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

#950

Post by skinkestek »

nullifidian wrote: post #949
skinkestek wrote: post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So companies would have to compete on pricing, availability, customer service etc etc instead of by being first to create lock in? Seems like a net benefit to me :-)

It stifles innovation and rewards big business. Why risk developing something if it will be taken from you? A winner-take-all kind of situation. It leaves little room for the platform's authors to generate revenue other then hiring themselves to said big business, and probably at depressed rates.

Because you can always outcompete them?

No, it is not a first class ticket to unicorn valuation, but it is trivially easy to differentiate

- from Google by just providing any kind of customer service to all paying customers

- from AWS and GCP just by allowing on premise solutions

- from Facebook by not reliably failing to protect and/or actively exploit your customers all the time

- etc

Need proof? See Slack, WhatsApp and Instagram (before the acquisition), Basecamp etc etc.

Post reply on HN