5 ms·

You have to pay Oracle to develop Java apps? That is news to me. I thought the idea was to offer the JDK for free to spur adoption. Is that only the JRE? Do

by daveguy 11y ago

You have to pay Oracle to develop Java apps? That is news to me. I thought the idea was to offer the JDK for free to spur adoption. Is that only the JRE? Does the same "no-commerce without paying Oracle" apply to JavaScript or Node.js?

enjo 11y ago
The case is more complex. Oracle is claiming that Google violated their copyright by cloning Java API's for the Android development kit. They didn't use the code from the Oracle API's, but rather provided the same interfaces only. Oracle won and now they're going to try to bleed Google dry on the Android front.
- kenshaw 11y ago
  I wouldn't say that Oracle won, as I don't believe Google has given up nor do I believe they have exhausted the legal tactics/maneuvers available to them. I fully believe this case will end up in front of the supreme court, as fundamentally this is a 1st amendment issue: do you have the right to say what other people are saying? (that's effectively what re-implementing APIs is). I believe the 1st amendment provides for this. My hope is that Google does not settle the case with Oracle, as I'm sure this case shows up at the top of their legal budget.
  - lftl 11y ago
    Didn't the Supreme Court already turn down the case? Or is there some other avenue of appeal that's yet to be decided?
    - carussell 11y ago
      The Supreme Court turned down the opportunity to hear Google's arguments that APIs are not protectable by copyright. Turns out, they are, according to the Supreme Court's implicit affirmation of the Federal Circuit's decision. But "copyright protection can extend to APIs" is all that the courts' decisions amount to so far. As the article says, the case has been remanded back to the district court, which will be trying to answer the question, "Given that APIs are not inherently unprotected, are Google's actions in this case punishable, or did they amount to fair use?" Here's how that's gonna go: Allsup is almost definitely going to find it fair use, and (with a little less certainty) the Federal Circuit is going to reverse that decision when Oracle appeals it. At that point, we're back to waiting to see if the Supreme Court will hear Google's arguments, but this time their argument will be that, APIs being unprotected or not, their actions were essentially no different than the ones the Supreme Court determined were defensible in Lexmark v. Static Control in pursuit of interoperability. First Amendment probably won't actually factor in to this. This is assuming that neither Oracle nor Google capitulates before it makes it that far. Oracle probably won't. Google might.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        > The Supreme Court turned down the opportunity to hear Google's arguments that APIs are not protectable by copyright. Turns out, they are, according to the Supreme Court's affirmation the Federal Circuit's decision. That's not an affirmation. An affirmation would be if the Supreme Court took the case, and agreed with the Federal Court. This is "we're not going to bother", which leaves the decision as good precedent in that Federal court (but not in any other).
        carussell 11y ago
        I originally wrote "implicit affirmation", but edited it out. Hope you didn't downvote the entire comment because of that.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Nope, I didn't downvote you. I think the rest of what you wrote is pretty accurate. I also don't think Google will capitulate. I think they're moving to OpenJDK to limit their downside, but I think they're doing it with the idea of fighting it out.
        magicalist 11y ago
        There's nothing to infer from a denial of a petition for certiorari, and there's certainly no precedential weight to it. And there's actually precedential weight to the fact that a denial has none :) It is true that they implicitly affirmed the decision in this particular case, but as to the larger question of copyrightability of APIs, as I mention above, the reasoning for denial could just as easily be they didn't think this case would be a good test for that question for whatever reason. Wikipedia cites a few cases in which the Supreme Court has explicitly stated this in [1] (see paragraph starting with "Conversely...") [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari#Federal_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari#Federal_courts
        magicalist 11y ago
        Yes, it's always worth reiterating that the Federal Circuit's decision is precedent nowhere, not even in the Ninth Circuit where the district court is located. This is one of the reasons why the FSF, for instance, sided with Google but still urged the Supreme Court not to take the case. They said the GPLed OpenJDK already gave Google the right to the APIs in question, but also noted that there wasn't precedent any court needed to defer to for the Supreme Court to address anyways.
0x4a6f6579 11y ago
When using Java, use is subject to Oracle Binary Code License Agreement (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/...). In this license use and distribution of the JRE & JDK are granted except for a few particular situations, outlined in various sections of the license. Simply the act of "develop[ing] Java apps" falls entirely within a fair interpretation of the license. The difference is best understood in the Solicitor General's Brief (pg. 5 http://www.scribd.com/doc/266703948/Goog-v-Oracle-Solicitor-General-Brief-Copy http://www.scribd.com/doc/266703948/Goog-v-Oracle-Solicitor-...): Although a Java programmer is free to write new code from scratch without relying on prewritten methods, the Java Standard Library provides convenient building blocks for writing computer programs. Although respondent [Oracle] does not claim a copyright interest in the Java language itself, respondent owns a copyright in the Java Standard Library. Pet App. 7. Respondent makes the Java Standard Library available to computer programmers under any of three copyright licenses, including a conditional royalty-free license. See id. at 7-8. On page 7: Petitioner [Google] assets that it copied the declaring code so that programmers familiar with the Java platform would be able to switch over to the Android platform without having to learn entirely new commands for invoking commonly used methods. In total, petitioner copied approximately 7000 lines of declaring code. Herein lies the core issue -- Google did not have a prearranged license agreement to copy the declaring code of Java's standard library, and in doing so infringed on the copyright by using it in their own platform. Section F of the Oracle Binary Code License reads JAVA TECHNOLOGY RESTRICTIONS. You may not create, modify, or change the behavior of, or authorize your licensees to create, modify, or change the behavior of, classes, interfaces, or subpackages that are in any way identified as "java", "javax", "sun", “oracle” or similar convention as specified by Oracle in any naming convention designation. tldr; Consider a painting created by an artist. A photographer comes along and thinks, "great painting!" and snaps a photo. If the photographer goes on to distribute and replicate the photograph of this painting (without an agreement with the artist) and earns a profit, the photographer has infringed on the artist's copyright.
- mjevans 11y ago
  An API is not a painting. It is a set of facts.
iyn 11y ago
Also, how does it relate to other JVM languages, like Scala? If Android was written in Scala instead of Java, would this lawsuit still applied?
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  No, the lawsuit (or what remains of it since Oracle lost on all of their patents) centers around the SSO of 37 Java API's (not code implementation, but method signatures and how they are arranged). Oracle is claiming copyright on those 37 Java API's. Oracle has no such control or claim to the Scala API's.
aaronkrolik 11y ago
Not if you use openjdk.

by daveguy 11y ago

enjo 11y ago

The case is more complex. Oracle is claiming that Google violated their copyright by cloning Java API's for the Android development kit. They didn't use the code from the Oracle API's, but rather provided the same interfaces only. Oracle won and now they're going to try to bleed Google dry on the Android front.

kenshaw 11y ago
I wouldn't say that Oracle won, as I don't believe Google has given up nor do I believe they have exhausted the legal tactics/maneuvers available to them. I fully believe this case will end up in front of the supreme court, as fundamentally this is a 1st amendment issue: do you have the right to say what other people are saying? (that's effectively what re-implementing APIs is). I believe the 1st amendment provides for this. My hope is that Google does not settle the case with Oracle, as I'm sure this case shows up at the top of their legal budget.
- lftl 11y ago
  Didn't the Supreme Court already turn down the case? Or is there some other avenue of appeal that's yet to be decided?
  - carussell 11y ago
    The Supreme Court turned down the opportunity to hear Google's arguments that APIs are not protectable by copyright. Turns out, they are, according to the Supreme Court's implicit affirmation of the Federal Circuit's decision. But "copyright protection can extend to APIs" is all that the courts' decisions amount to so far. As the article says, the case has been remanded back to the district court, which will be trying to answer the question, "Given that APIs are not inherently unprotected, are Google's actions in this case punishable, or did they amount to fair use?" Here's how that's gonna go: Allsup is almost definitely going to find it fair use, and (with a little less certainty) the Federal Circuit is going to reverse that decision when Oracle appeals it. At that point, we're back to waiting to see if the Supreme Court will hear Google's arguments, but this time their argument will be that, APIs being unprotected or not, their actions were essentially no different than the ones the Supreme Court determined were defensible in Lexmark v. Static Control in pursuit of interoperability. First Amendment probably won't actually factor in to this. This is assuming that neither Oracle nor Google capitulates before it makes it that far. Oracle probably won't. Google might.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      > The Supreme Court turned down the opportunity to hear Google's arguments that APIs are not protectable by copyright. Turns out, they are, according to the Supreme Court's affirmation the Federal Circuit's decision. That's not an affirmation. An affirmation would be if the Supreme Court took the case, and agreed with the Federal Court. This is "we're not going to bother", which leaves the decision as good precedent in that Federal court (but not in any other).
      - carussell 11y ago
        I originally wrote "implicit affirmation", but edited it out. Hope you didn't downvote the entire comment because of that.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Nope, I didn't downvote you. I think the rest of what you wrote is pretty accurate. I also don't think Google will capitulate. I think they're moving to OpenJDK to limit their downside, but I think they're doing it with the idea of fighting it out.
        magicalist 11y ago
        There's nothing to infer from a denial of a petition for certiorari, and there's certainly no precedential weight to it. And there's actually precedential weight to the fact that a denial has none :) It is true that they implicitly affirmed the decision in this particular case, but as to the larger question of copyrightability of APIs, as I mention above, the reasoning for denial could just as easily be they didn't think this case would be a good test for that question for whatever reason. Wikipedia cites a few cases in which the Supreme Court has explicitly stated this in [1] (see paragraph starting with "Conversely...") [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari#Federal_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari#Federal_courts
      - magicalist 11y ago
        Yes, it's always worth reiterating that the Federal Circuit's decision is precedent nowhere, not even in the Ninth Circuit where the district court is located. This is one of the reasons why the FSF, for instance, sided with Google but still urged the Supreme Court not to take the case. They said the GPLed OpenJDK already gave Google the right to the APIs in question, but also noted that there wasn't precedent any court needed to defer to for the Supreme Court to address anyways.

0x4a6f6579 11y ago

When using Java, use is subject to Oracle Binary Code License Agreement (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/...). In this license use and distribution of the JRE & JDK are granted except for a few particular situations, outlined in various sections of the license. Simply the act of "develop[ing] Java apps" falls entirely within a fair interpretation of the license. The difference is best understood in the Solicitor General's Brief (pg. 5 http://www.scribd.com/doc/266703948/Goog-v-Oracle-Solicitor-General-Brief-Copy http://www.scribd.com/doc/266703948/Goog-v-Oracle-Solicitor-...): Although a Java programmer is free to write new code from scratch without relying on prewritten methods, the Java Standard Library provides convenient building blocks for writing computer programs. Although respondent [Oracle] does not claim a copyright interest in the Java language itself, respondent owns a copyright in the Java Standard Library. Pet App. 7. Respondent makes the Java Standard Library available to computer programmers under any of three copyright licenses, including a conditional royalty-free license. See id. at 7-8. On page 7: Petitioner [Google] assets that it copied the declaring code so that programmers familiar with the Java platform would be able to switch over to the Android platform without having to learn entirely new commands for invoking commonly used methods. In total, petitioner copied approximately 7000 lines of declaring code. Herein lies the core issue -- Google did not have a prearranged license agreement to copy the declaring code of Java's standard library, and in doing so infringed on the copyright by using it in their own platform. Section F of the Oracle Binary Code License reads JAVA TECHNOLOGY RESTRICTIONS. You may not create, modify, or change the behavior of, or authorize your licensees to create, modify, or change the behavior of, classes, interfaces, or subpackages that are in any way identified as "java", "javax", "sun", “oracle” or similar convention as specified by Oracle in any naming convention designation. tldr; Consider a painting created by an artist. A photographer comes along and thinks, "great painting!" and snaps a photo. If the photographer goes on to distribute and replicate the photograph of this painting (without an agreement with the artist) and earns a profit, the photographer has infringed on the artist's copyright.

mjevans 11y ago
An API is not a painting. It is a set of facts.

iyn 11y ago

Also, how does it relate to other JVM languages, like Scala? If Android was written in Scala instead of Java, would this lawsuit still applied?

bitmapbrother 11y ago
No, the lawsuit (or what remains of it since Oracle lost on all of their patents) centers around the SSO of 37 Java API's (not code implementation, but method signatures and how they are arranged). Oracle is claiming copyright on those 37 Java API's. Oracle has no such control or claim to the Scala API's.

aaronkrolik 11y ago

Not if you use openjdk.