9 ms·

> [1]: I am willing to bet that very few people understand what the Oracle v. Google court case is all about, And what it was about?

by Oletros 11y ago

pron 11y ago
First, we should separate the motivation for the lawsuit from the legal arguments. Corporations don't go to court to win legal arguments; they go to court to defend or promote their business. I) The motivation for the lawsuit was that at the time, Java's main revenue stream was licensing Java IP (either an actual implementation or the permission to implement the spec) for use in mobile devices. That was how Sun made money off of Java. Java's commercial license allowed people to freely implement the specification as long as they pass the compatibility test, unless the implementation was for use in mobile devices -- this required a paid license. Google then created an implementation of (a part of) the spec, and didn't reach a licensing agreement with Sun (they couldn't agree on a price; I think Sun wanted $25M for the first five years or something). Google used Java IP to directly attack said IP's main revenue source. That is not to say that what they did wasn't legal, but that is why what they did mattered to Sun (and then Oracle) enough to sue them. Google needed Java because developing a language ecosystem suitable for phone application takes years. Google knew that such a lawsuit is forthcoming -- you can't come at a company like that and not expect one -- but hoped that they could defend their actions in court, at least on legal grounds. So that's what the lawsuit was about. II) Now for the legal case. Oracle wanted to get their (in their view -- fair) share of Android no matter how, so they used -- as anyone does -- any legal argument they could think of which would get the desired business result, from patents to copyright. Some stuck, some didn't. In the end, it was the API copyright argument that convinced the (appeals) court. But before I say a few words about that, let me reiterate: Oracle didn't set out to copyright APIs; they set out to get a share of Android, which attacked their main Java revenue stream directly using their own IP. Anyway, Google claimed that APIs aren't copyrightable, but Oracle won that round. Now, I will not go into this question itself -- there are good arguments for both sides -- but only into its ramifications. Google started a massive PR campaign to convince people that that ruling is disastrous for them, but it isn't, and for several reasons. First, it applies only to language-level APIs; not REST protocols, recently also referred to as APIs. This is not open to interpretation. Web "APIs" are not copyrightable for completely other reasons, reasons which are impossible (as much as anything in law is impossible) to argue against. Second, the court ruled that some of Google's argument regarding the copyrightability of APIs are really fair use arguments, and this is the second crucial point: if something is copyrighted, that does not mean you may not freely use it for some purposes. When it comes to interfaces, one fair use defense has been interoperability[1]. Courts have ruled it legal to "violate" copyright for the purpose of creating components that are interoperable with the original. This means that if you implement an API in order to break vendor lockin, you're probably within your right to do so. However, that is not what Google did in this particular case (Android is not interoperable with Java, only very, very partially). So while Google may still lose the fair-use question (which is still on the table), nearly all other implementors would still be protected by fair use. To sum up the legal issue, while it has been in Google's best interest to cause panic, the ruling does not apply to any other player but Google because: 1. It only applies to language-level APIs; it does not and cannot apply to web APIs and other protocols (either software or hardware). 2. Implementing an API is protected by the interoperability fair-use defense, even if Google's particular (and highly unusual) use isn't. And in any case, unless you use a company's (language-level) API against it, there is little chance they'll come after you; if you do, well, you knew they'd come after you even before this court case. III) Finally, it is important to note that all along Google had the option of freely using OpenJDK. The use of OpenJDK does not require conformance with the Java standard; it is completely unencumbered. The reason Google opted not to do it was because at the time they were afraid phone manufacturers would not like OpenJDKs license, GPLv2 + the classpath exception, even though Android also make use of Linux, which is also licensed under the GPL. This reasoning seems to have changed now. [1]: https://www.cs.duke.edu/courses/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/Copyrights/Copyright-Fairuse.htm https://www.cs.duke.edu/courses/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/C...
- xolve 11y ago
  I think after a legal counsel it was impossible for Oracle not to move to courts. Else others would create spin-off's from Java and cite Android as an example.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > Google then created an implementation of (a part of) the spec, and didn't reach a licensing agreement with Sun If Google used Apache Harmony, the ones implementing it where Apache Foundation. Why Oracle didn't sue Apache? > hat is not to say that what they did wasn't legal, but that is why what they did mattered to Sun (and then Oracle) enough to sue them Sun didn't sue Google in the 5 years Google used Android > First, it applies only to language-level APIs; not REST protocols, recently also referred to as APIs. This is not open to interpretation. Web "APIs" are not copyrightable for completely other reasons, reasons which are impossible (as much as anything in law is impossible) to argue against. And exactly why is different? The ruling talks about API and API's has nothing to do with being a language level API or a "web API". > Second, the court ruled that some of Google's argument regarding the copyrightability of APIs are really fair use arguments" As far as I know, the appeal court ruled that the fair use question must be decided in the forthcoming case, nothing more. As any other copyright case > To sum up the legal issue, while it has been in Google's best interest to cause panic, the ruling does not apply to any other player but Google because: >1. It only applies to language-level APIs, not web APIs. You have to make your case why only applies to lkevel language API's > 2. It is protected by the interoperability fair-use defense, even if Google's particular use isn't. No, it has to go to court so yes, any player must be concerned
  - pron 11y ago
    > Why Oracle didn't sue Apache? Simple: because they didn't have the motivation (see point (I)). Their goal wasn't to copyright APIs (that just was one of the many tactics used in court, and the one that just happened to win), but to get their share of Android. Suing Apache wouldn't have helped their goal in the least. Also, while not relevant to the question, I will note that even if APIs are copyrighted, Harmony has a much stronger fair-use defense than Android: 1. It was done for the purpose of interoperability and 2. it was not intended to make a profit. Each of these is a fair use defense alone, and certainly together, but neither is true for Android (although the first might be partially true). > Sun didn't sue Google in the 5 years Google used Android Because they didn't have the resources and the inclination, as the company was already in a downward spiral and such a lawsuit could only have hurt them at the time. Google, however, fully expected them to. > The ruling talks about API and API's has nothing to do with being a language level API or a "web API". That's only because the term "API" -- until very recently -- was only used to describe language-level API, while what today is known as a web API has always been called a protocol, so don't let the recent overloading of the term confuse you. More to the point, the reason copyright may apply to APIs but certainly not to protocols is because copyright law is not only concerned with the intent, abstraction, or use of the work, but also with its form. This why other IP protections (like patents) exist, to cover works whose form does not match those covered by copyright. In particular, copyright requires a fixed representation (in text, image, recording etc.). So, for example, if I tell you a story, the story isn't copyrighted. But if I write it down -- or even record it -- then the text of the story or the recording is copyrighted. It doesn't matter that the purpose in all three cases was the same: to convey a story (once that fixed form is copyrighted, the protection may extend to non-exact reproductions, but that original fixed-form must exist). While a protocol may be described in a text and that text is copyrighted, the described protocol itself cannot be, because it does not have a fixed representation in text (a completely different text could describe the same protocol). A language API does have a fixed form. > the appeal court ruled that the fair use question must be decided in the forthcoming case, nothing more. As any other copyright case Yes, but that was the point. Google made some arguments that they believed would make APIs non-copyrightable. The court ruled that those arguments are fair-use arguments which are not relevant to the question of copyrightability, but may be used as a defense once APIs are copyrighted. > No, it has to go to court so yes, any player must be concerned Quite the opposite. It is the copyright holder who has to sue you. Any company would sue you if they believe they have a case, and you would still need to defend yourself in court when they do. The question of API copyrightability had never been decided, so even before the ruling there was a good chance you'd be sued, and you'd still need to defend yourself. Now, it is true that a ruling against API copyrightability would have removed this threat (which had existed even prior to this case), but now your position is not much different than before, only that except making two arguments (as Google did) -- that API are not copyrightable and if they are, you've made fair use of them -- you only have one: fair use.

> [1]: I am willing to bet that very few people understand what the Oracle v. Google court case is all about, And what it was about?

by Oletros 11y ago

> [1]: I am willing to bet that very few people understand what the Oracle v. Google court case is all about, And what it was about?

pron 11y ago

First, we should separate the motivation for the lawsuit from the legal arguments. Corporations don't go to court to win legal arguments; they go to court to defend or promote their business. I) The motivation for the lawsuit was that at the time, Java's main revenue stream was licensing Java IP (either an actual implementation or the permission to implement the spec) for use in mobile devices. That was how Sun made money off of Java. Java's commercial license allowed people to freely implement the specification as long as they pass the compatibility test, unless the implementation was for use in mobile devices -- this required a paid license. Google then created an implementation of (a part of) the spec, and didn't reach a licensing agreement with Sun (they couldn't agree on a price; I think Sun wanted $25M for the first five years or something). Google used Java IP to directly attack said IP's main revenue source. That is not to say that what they did wasn't legal, but that is why what they did mattered to Sun (and then Oracle) enough to sue them. Google needed Java because developing a language ecosystem suitable for phone application takes years. Google knew that such a lawsuit is forthcoming -- you can't come at a company like that and not expect one -- but hoped that they could defend their actions in court, at least on legal grounds. So that's what the lawsuit was about. II) Now for the legal case. Oracle wanted to get their (in their view -- fair) share of Android no matter how, so they used -- as anyone does -- any legal argument they could think of which would get the desired business result, from patents to copyright. Some stuck, some didn't. In the end, it was the API copyright argument that convinced the (appeals) court. But before I say a few words about that, let me reiterate: Oracle didn't set out to copyright APIs; they set out to get a share of Android, which attacked their main Java revenue stream directly using their own IP. Anyway, Google claimed that APIs aren't copyrightable, but Oracle won that round. Now, I will not go into this question itself -- there are good arguments for both sides -- but only into its ramifications. Google started a massive PR campaign to convince people that that ruling is disastrous for them, but it isn't, and for several reasons. First, it applies only to language-level APIs; not REST protocols, recently also referred to as APIs. This is not open to interpretation. Web "APIs" are not copyrightable for completely other reasons, reasons which are impossible (as much as anything in law is impossible) to argue against. Second, the court ruled that some of Google's argument regarding the copyrightability of APIs are really fair use arguments, and this is the second crucial point: if something is copyrighted, that does not mean you may not freely use it for some purposes. When it comes to interfaces, one fair use defense has been interoperability[1]. Courts have ruled it legal to "violate" copyright for the purpose of creating components that are interoperable with the original. This means that if you implement an API in order to break vendor lockin, you're probably within your right to do so. However, that is not what Google did in this particular case (Android is not interoperable with Java, only very, very partially). So while Google may still lose the fair-use question (which is still on the table), nearly all other implementors would still be protected by fair use. To sum up the legal issue, while it has been in Google's best interest to cause panic, the ruling does not apply to any other player but Google because: 1. It only applies to language-level APIs; it does not and cannot apply to web APIs and other protocols (either software or hardware). 2. Implementing an API is protected by the interoperability fair-use defense, even if Google's particular (and highly unusual) use isn't. And in any case, unless you use a company's (language-level) API against it, there is little chance they'll come after you; if you do, well, you knew they'd come after you even before this court case. III) Finally, it is important to note that all along Google had the option of freely using OpenJDK. The use of OpenJDK does not require conformance with the Java standard; it is completely unencumbered. The reason Google opted not to do it was because at the time they were afraid phone manufacturers would not like OpenJDKs license, GPLv2 + the classpath exception, even though Android also make use of Linux, which is also licensed under the GPL. This reasoning seems to have changed now. [1]: https://www.cs.duke.edu/courses/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/Copyrights/Copyright-Fairuse.htm https://www.cs.duke.edu/courses/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/C...

xolve 11y ago
I think after a legal counsel it was impossible for Oracle not to move to courts. Else others would create spin-off's from Java and cite Android as an example.
Oletros 11y ago
> Google then created an implementation of (a part of) the spec, and didn't reach a licensing agreement with Sun If Google used Apache Harmony, the ones implementing it where Apache Foundation. Why Oracle didn't sue Apache? > hat is not to say that what they did wasn't legal, but that is why what they did mattered to Sun (and then Oracle) enough to sue them Sun didn't sue Google in the 5 years Google used Android > First, it applies only to language-level APIs; not REST protocols, recently also referred to as APIs. This is not open to interpretation. Web "APIs" are not copyrightable for completely other reasons, reasons which are impossible (as much as anything in law is impossible) to argue against. And exactly why is different? The ruling talks about API and API's has nothing to do with being a language level API or a "web API". > Second, the court ruled that some of Google's argument regarding the copyrightability of APIs are really fair use arguments" As far as I know, the appeal court ruled that the fair use question must be decided in the forthcoming case, nothing more. As any other copyright case > To sum up the legal issue, while it has been in Google's best interest to cause panic, the ruling does not apply to any other player but Google because: >1. It only applies to language-level APIs, not web APIs. You have to make your case why only applies to lkevel language API's > 2. It is protected by the interoperability fair-use defense, even if Google's particular use isn't. No, it has to go to court so yes, any player must be concerned
- pron 11y ago
  > Why Oracle didn't sue Apache? Simple: because they didn't have the motivation (see point (I)). Their goal wasn't to copyright APIs (that just was one of the many tactics used in court, and the one that just happened to win), but to get their share of Android. Suing Apache wouldn't have helped their goal in the least. Also, while not relevant to the question, I will note that even if APIs are copyrighted, Harmony has a much stronger fair-use defense than Android: 1. It was done for the purpose of interoperability and 2. it was not intended to make a profit. Each of these is a fair use defense alone, and certainly together, but neither is true for Android (although the first might be partially true). > Sun didn't sue Google in the 5 years Google used Android Because they didn't have the resources and the inclination, as the company was already in a downward spiral and such a lawsuit could only have hurt them at the time. Google, however, fully expected them to. > The ruling talks about API and API's has nothing to do with being a language level API or a "web API". That's only because the term "API" -- until very recently -- was only used to describe language-level API, while what today is known as a web API has always been called a protocol, so don't let the recent overloading of the term confuse you. More to the point, the reason copyright may apply to APIs but certainly not to protocols is because copyright law is not only concerned with the intent, abstraction, or use of the work, but also with its form. This why other IP protections (like patents) exist, to cover works whose form does not match those covered by copyright. In particular, copyright requires a fixed representation (in text, image, recording etc.). So, for example, if I tell you a story, the story isn't copyrighted. But if I write it down -- or even record it -- then the text of the story or the recording is copyrighted. It doesn't matter that the purpose in all three cases was the same: to convey a story (once that fixed form is copyrighted, the protection may extend to non-exact reproductions, but that original fixed-form must exist). While a protocol may be described in a text and that text is copyrighted, the described protocol itself cannot be, because it does not have a fixed representation in text (a completely different text could describe the same protocol). A language API does have a fixed form. > the appeal court ruled that the fair use question must be decided in the forthcoming case, nothing more. As any other copyright case Yes, but that was the point. Google made some arguments that they believed would make APIs non-copyrightable. The court ruled that those arguments are fair-use arguments which are not relevant to the question of copyrightability, but may be used as a defense once APIs are copyrighted. > No, it has to go to court so yes, any player must be concerned Quite the opposite. It is the copyright holder who has to sue you. Any company would sue you if they believe they have a case, and you would still need to defend yourself in court when they do. The question of API copyrightability had never been decided, so even before the ruling there was a good chance you'd be sued, and you'd still need to defend yourself. Now, it is true that a ruling against API copyrightability would have removed this threat (which had existed even prior to this case), but now your position is not much different than before, only that except making two arguments (as Google did) -- that API are not copyrightable and if they are, you've made fair use of them -- you only have one: fair use.