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

961–965 of 965 posts

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

#961

Post by xxpor »

paulmd wrote: post #620
xxpor wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would willingly make a new x86 design these days? I would think this would crack ARM's control over their instruction set though. I can't imagine it'd be worth re-implementing literally the entire thing from scratch though when ARM will willingly sell you IP blocks, as opposed to Intel or ARM which will certainly not.

Zhaoxin Semiconductor, for one. Hygon licensed AMD's architecture as a starting point for their own stuff for another. You're not going to find a lot in the west due to the patent issues (why follow that path when you're doomed to be sued into the ground), but there clearly is a desire to pursue x86 as an ISA (as opposed to going with ARM).

That's fair, but on the other hand, why would they have cared about American copyright in the first place? Worst that could happen to them is they're banned from being imported into the west, which they probably didn't see as a realistic market anyway.

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

#962

Post by monocasa »

ccleve wrote: post #953
monocasa wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under the law, they do not receive protection. See Baker v. Selden, which despite it's age is still good law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden

No. Baker v. Selden does not settle the question of APIs and fair use. That is why the Google v Oracle case made it to the Supreme Court.

It does say that the facts of a traditional print formatting specification (ie. the specific subtopic we're talking about) is not granted copyright protections.

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

#963

Post by unreal37 »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #905
unreal37 wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think that’s what cloudwizard is saying. They knew that Netscape cost money for professional use, but in trying to get an invoice to actually pay for it, Netscape did nothing.

I worked at a company in 1994 that had 10,000 licenses to Netscape Navigator. I had a support person I could call. So on some scale, there was definitely a way to send them money.

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

#964

Post by davegauer »

ekianjo wrote: post #790
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.

Yup, I can clearly remember Netscape crashing very very often. It was definitely the worse browser.

Bingo and I distinctly remember when IE's CSS support was significantly better than Netscape's at a crucial point in time when it really mattered to nascent Web design and development.
Post reply on HN