4 ms·

Oracle tried their hand with copyright infringement, because copyright is far stronger than anything else that's IP-related. However, here's the thing: 1. Orac

Oracle tried their hand with copyright infringement, because copyright is far stronger than anything else that's IP-related. However, here's the thing: 1. Oracle is basically arguing about APIs being copyrightable and if APIs are deemed to be copyrightable, we're fucked as an industry ;-) 2. Oracle, because of the Sun acquisition, has many, many interesting patents related to programming languages and virtual machines. Consider that Sun was involved in the research for making Smaltalk VMs fast and they also developed Self. The IP for all the fancy techniques used in Java's HotSpot VM? Well Sun owned it. Do you think Go is safe because it's not based on Java, or because it doesn't have a Java-like VM? Think again, at the very least it has a garbage collector ;-) Thing is, if Google would have cloned OpenJDK, they would have been safe because of the GPL license. But they didn't, they used Apache Harmony instead, a project that never passed the Java TCK because Sun never allowed it to.

bliti 11y ago
Was openjdk a feasible option at the time?
- pakled_engineer 11y ago
  Yes but Android's policy is avoid GPL whenever possible, which is why they rewrote their own Dm-crypt mod and other standard tools also Oracle already tried and failed to sue over Android http://www.infoworld.com/article/2615512/java/open-source-java-for-android--don-t-bet-on-it.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2615512/java/open-source-ja... (2012 article)
Oletros 11y ago
Oracle failed to assert any patent related to virtual machines
dozzie 11y ago
> Think again, at the very least it has a garbage collector ;-) ...which was not invented by Sun. GC is like twenty years older.
noir_lord 11y ago
> 1. Oracle is basically arguing about APIs being copyrightable and if APIs are deemed to be copyrightable, we're fucked as an industry ;-) In the US, in Europe where we are somewhat more sane on this issue I'd look forward to a boom in software development the like of which we've never seen. The implications for the US software industry are pretty horrify though, it makes software patents look mild.
- fauigerzigerk 11y ago
  Why a boom in software development?
  - toyg 11y ago
    parent thinks the industry will flee to safer European shores, because the local legal climate is much more liberal than the US when it comes to software (for example, patent trolls are very rare over here). In practice this is unlikely for a number of reasons, in particular the fact that Europe is way too expensive for the industry that spearheaded third-world "offshoring".
    - noir_lord 11y ago
      That would be the case except if you where a US software company fleeing a legislative climate that made it hard to do business are you going to put your HQ/major business units in Berlin/Paris or a third-world country. These are large primarily sales driven organizations so first world transport links and infrastructure matter.
    - fauigerzigerk 11y ago
      It's not just unlikely, it's completely nonsensical from a legal perspective. If Google's Android division were located in Europe, that would make zero difference for their legal fight against Oracle. The only way to avoid US law is to not trade in the US at all, otherwise someone should have told Samsung and SAP before they paid hundereds of millions to Apple and Oracle respectively.
mikekchar 11y ago
I always think is is somewhat interesting given the Java trap [1]. In some ways RMS was very prescient (not entirely surprising), but had Sun not released Java under the GPL, we could easily be having this discussion about IceTea. The "Don't be ridiculous, nobody is going to sue you for using/implementing Java/C#/whatever" attitude was always frustrating, but I have to admit I didn't actually expect it to really happen :-P [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.en.html
throwawaykf05 11y ago
APIs are pretty much confirmed to be copyrightable, as far as I can tell. The SC denying cert to review this appeal essentially confirms the Federal Circuit's interpretation. All that is left is to decide on fair use, which could still let Google off, but that defense assumes copyrightability. But I disagree "we're fucked as an industry", though there could be some inconvenience. The Sega etc. cases still hold, and they essentially say that copying interfaces for binary compatibility / interoperability is fine. As far as statically compiled languages are concerned, that's all we need. If some API creator sues, we can always create / adopt a different API and map it to the binary instructions in the SPI.
- tzs 11y ago
  As far as I've been able to tell, the Federal Circuit's decision sets no precedent. It is only binding on the trial court in this particular case. Their decisions on patents set precedent, but for copyright they are supposed to follow the precedent of the numbered circuit that the trial court is in, which would be the 9th in this case. Future copyright cases in the 9th will still be appealed to the 9th Circuit, not the Federal Circuit, unless they are also a patent case. I think there needs to be a change to the way appeals work in cases like this. In federal trial courts, there is a thing called supplemental jurisdiction which allows a court to hear claims that they would normally not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear if they are part of a case with other claims that they do have jurisdiction to hear. For example, suppose a business deal goes bad, and ends up spawning a lawsuit involving federal copyright claims and state contract claims. Copyright claims must be heard in federal court. Federal courts normally would not have jurisdiction to hear state contract cases, but because of supplemental jurisdiction the federal court will hear the state contract claims too. If the case was just a state contract case, it could not be brought in federal court. The idea behind supplemental jurisdiction is that in case like my hypothetical business deal gone bad it really is one case that just happened to generate issues that fell under different jurisdictions. If tried separately there would be much overlap in witnesses, documents, and other evidence. It would be an inefficient use of judicial resources and unduly burdensome on the parties and the witnesses. At the appellate level, the court is examining the trial court's application of the law, not the trial court's determination of the facts. The appeals court works off the transcript and documents from the trial court, and the only people that have to appear physically are the lawyers arguing for the parties. I think it would make a more sense to let appeals from multi-issue cases to go to multiple appeals courts, each appeals court only getting those issues for which it sets precedent. So in a case like Oracle vs. Google, tried in the 9th Circuit, copyright issue appeals should go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and patent issue appeals should go to the Federal Circuit. In cases like my hypothetical copyright and state contract case, if tried in the 9th Circuit, appeals on copyright issues should go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and state contract issues should go to a state appellate court.

bliti 11y ago

Was openjdk a feasible option at the time?

pakled_engineer 11y ago
Yes but Android's policy is avoid GPL whenever possible, which is why they rewrote their own Dm-crypt mod and other standard tools also Oracle already tried and failed to sue over Android http://www.infoworld.com/article/2615512/java/open-source-java-for-android--don-t-bet-on-it.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2615512/java/open-source-ja... (2012 article)

Oletros 11y ago

Oracle failed to assert any patent related to virtual machines

dozzie 11y ago

> Think again, at the very least it has a garbage collector ;-) ...which was not invented by Sun. GC is like twenty years older.

noir_lord 11y ago

> 1. Oracle is basically arguing about APIs being copyrightable and if APIs are deemed to be copyrightable, we're fucked as an industry ;-) In the US, in Europe where we are somewhat more sane on this issue I'd look forward to a boom in software development the like of which we've never seen. The implications for the US software industry are pretty horrify though, it makes software patents look mild.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago
Why a boom in software development?
- toyg 11y ago
  parent thinks the industry will flee to safer European shores, because the local legal climate is much more liberal than the US when it comes to software (for example, patent trolls are very rare over here). In practice this is unlikely for a number of reasons, in particular the fact that Europe is way too expensive for the industry that spearheaded third-world "offshoring".
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    That would be the case except if you where a US software company fleeing a legislative climate that made it hard to do business are you going to put your HQ/major business units in Berlin/Paris or a third-world country. These are large primarily sales driven organizations so first world transport links and infrastructure matter.
  - fauigerzigerk 11y ago
    It's not just unlikely, it's completely nonsensical from a legal perspective. If Google's Android division were located in Europe, that would make zero difference for their legal fight against Oracle. The only way to avoid US law is to not trade in the US at all, otherwise someone should have told Samsung and SAP before they paid hundereds of millions to Apple and Oracle respectively.

mikekchar 11y ago

I always think is is somewhat interesting given the Java trap [1]. In some ways RMS was very prescient (not entirely surprising), but had Sun not released Java under the GPL, we could easily be having this discussion about IceTea. The "Don't be ridiculous, nobody is going to sue you for using/implementing Java/C#/whatever" attitude was always frustrating, but I have to admit I didn't actually expect it to really happen :-P [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.en.html

throwawaykf05 11y ago

APIs are pretty much confirmed to be copyrightable, as far as I can tell. The SC denying cert to review this appeal essentially confirms the Federal Circuit's interpretation. All that is left is to decide on fair use, which could still let Google off, but that defense assumes copyrightability. But I disagree "we're fucked as an industry", though there could be some inconvenience. The Sega etc. cases still hold, and they essentially say that copying interfaces for binary compatibility / interoperability is fine. As far as statically compiled languages are concerned, that's all we need. If some API creator sues, we can always create / adopt a different API and map it to the binary instructions in the SPI.

tzs 11y ago
As far as I've been able to tell, the Federal Circuit's decision sets no precedent. It is only binding on the trial court in this particular case. Their decisions on patents set precedent, but for copyright they are supposed to follow the precedent of the numbered circuit that the trial court is in, which would be the 9th in this case. Future copyright cases in the 9th will still be appealed to the 9th Circuit, not the Federal Circuit, unless they are also a patent case. I think there needs to be a change to the way appeals work in cases like this. In federal trial courts, there is a thing called supplemental jurisdiction which allows a court to hear claims that they would normally not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear if they are part of a case with other claims that they do have jurisdiction to hear. For example, suppose a business deal goes bad, and ends up spawning a lawsuit involving federal copyright claims and state contract claims. Copyright claims must be heard in federal court. Federal courts normally would not have jurisdiction to hear state contract cases, but because of supplemental jurisdiction the federal court will hear the state contract claims too. If the case was just a state contract case, it could not be brought in federal court. The idea behind supplemental jurisdiction is that in case like my hypothetical business deal gone bad it really is one case that just happened to generate issues that fell under different jurisdictions. If tried separately there would be much overlap in witnesses, documents, and other evidence. It would be an inefficient use of judicial resources and unduly burdensome on the parties and the witnesses. At the appellate level, the court is examining the trial court's application of the law, not the trial court's determination of the facts. The appeals court works off the transcript and documents from the trial court, and the only people that have to appear physically are the lawyers arguing for the parties. I think it would make a more sense to let appeals from multi-issue cases to go to multiple appeals courts, each appeals court only getting those issues for which it sets precedent. So in a case like Oracle vs. Google, tried in the 9th Circuit, copyright issue appeals should go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and patent issue appeals should go to the Federal Circuit. In cases like my hypothetical copyright and state contract case, if tried in the 9th Circuit, appeals on copyright issues should go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and state contract issues should go to a state appellate court.