10 ms·

Second Oracle v. Google trial could lead to headaches for developers

100 points by gman83 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago
*In the United States. Let's hope that if this goes badly, the rest of the world retains some sense of sanity and doesn't allow intellectual property laws to be used to restrict essential principles like interoperability.
- trimtab 10y ago
  That likely depends on what trade agreements exist between your country and the US. The dominoes could fall quite quickly.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Indeed, though that is exactly the sort of reason TTIP is starting to attract attention for all the wrong reasons here in Europe.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
maxlybbert 10y ago
If I remember correctly, the appeals court did not rule that APIs are copyrighted, only that they might be copyrightable in some cases. Judge Alsup had ruled that they couldn't be copyrighted; that if you used the four-factor test, you would always always come to the "outside copyright protection" answer in all cases.
- zerocrates 10y ago
  The Federal Circuit didn't remand on the question of copyrightability, it reversed. In other words, it explicitly held that the Java APIs at issue in the case were entitled to copyright protection, not merely that an API could be.
  - deciplex 10y ago
    I don't think you're necessarily contradicting maxlybbert, if the Federal Circuit only reversed the lower court on the question of the Java API in particular.
  - maxlybbert 10y ago
    I had to dig up the ruling ( https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021.opinion.5-7-2014.1.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021... ). It looks like my memory was faulty: "Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement finding as to the 37 Java packages. Because the jury deadlocked on fair use, we remand for further consideration of Google’s fair use defense in light of this decision" (pg. 5).
- zmmmmm 10y ago
  Isn't such uncertainty by itself a death sentence for a vast range users relying on incorporation of APIs into their software? Can open source projects and small developers employ lawyers to decide if their particular use is "fair"? It seems to me that anything other than an extremely clear cut decision is going to be a disaster for the software industry here.
  - maxlybbert 10y ago
    I certainly prefer a simple rule so that I don't need to ask an attorney whether a particular API is copyrighted before I start working. But I found the original article misleading in a few aspects, and wanted to clarify things before the discussion turned silly over misunderstandings. It's also true that courts are expected to come to the right conclusion for the right reason. If a company spent years telling people they were free to use some particular API, then sued them for doing so, it would be important to distinguish between a case where the API isn't copyrightable and a case where the API is copyrightable but that people had permission to create derivative works based on that API. For some reason, many people are unable to make that distinction when talking about things around the water cooler.
nathanaldensr 10y ago
This whole thing is unbelievable to me. We have Oracle spending who knows how much money suing Google and claiming that APIs are copyrightable. At the same time they, along with virtually every software company ever, rely on documented, standardized, ubiquitous protocols like IP, TCP/IP, and HTTP to create software that does anything useful. Even the most basic notepad or calculator application relies on APIs to function. I cannot imagine a world that forces us to treat every use of an API as a must-be-legally-contracted integration. Even the most trivial applications would never get completed because the cost just to agree to all these contracts would exceed any ability to generate profit from the resulting software. If Oracle wins then in a way this might actually be good for open source; software developers would seek out the path of least resistance: APIs that could be licensed freely. This could simply extend the push of open source code further to APIs.
- curt15 10y ago
  It's ironic that one of Oracle's core products (https://www.oracle.com/linux/operating-system/index.html https://www.oracle.com/linux/operating-system/index.html) was created by the very practice that they are trying to outlaw, as an independent implementation of proprietary software (belonging to AT&T).
  - WildUtah 10y ago
    Oracle's core product is Oracle database. That is a product based on SQL, an API language invented by IBM's Codd, Boyce, and Chamberlin in 1970-1974. Oracle developed Oracle database before IBM offered standardized free royalty-free licensing, so Oracle's core product, according to Oracle's legal theory, belongs to IBM.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  There's a strong fair use defense for interoperability (Sony v Connectix). In the hypothetical situation that someone claimed copyright on TCP/IP, presumably that would be a strong enough defense. Google is in difficulty here because they didn't use Java for purposes of interoperability; their version isn't even compatible. If they had, Oracle would have no case. The appeals court left open the question of whether Java being easier for developers because they already know Java counts as a fair use defense. It might count, and then Google is free. If Oracle wins then in a way this might actually be good for open source; software developers would seek out the path of least resistance: APIs that could be licensed freely. That is why the FSF supported Oracle before the supreme court.
jakelarkin 10y ago
I suspect if Oracle's wins the case ... 1) they will win a lot of money in the near term but it will greatly diminish the popularity of Java/JVM in the long run because most tech companies shudder at the thought of having Oracle be the slumlord of their core program language. 2) there will be a painful transition of FUD and lawsuits but open source languages/libraries will be ultimately become stronger in industry b/c the licenses can easily be extended to API rights. Restrictively or vaguely licensed code will be looked up on with greater suspicion.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  I highly doubt the kinds of companies that buy Oracle really care about Oracle's legal tactics.
- snambi 10y ago
  There is no point using java, when Oracle can sue you anytime for any reason. Time to get away from Java, if oracle wins.
  - dragandj 10y ago
    Only if you violate Java's GPL license. Google took a GPL code and licensed it under a different license - that's why they are sued. So, even if Google looses, that basically strengthens the open source case AND Java, meaning that you can not hijack Java (GPL) and make its offshot non-free (in a copyleft sense).
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Google took a GPL code and licensed it under a different license - that's why they are sued. The only code that was alleged to be copied were a few test files (which weren't even distributed) and a 9-line function called "rangeCheck". There was a second copyright claim on the APIs, but Oracle didn't claim the code was copied, just that the reimplementation had the same "structure, sequence and organization" (that is, same names and arguments).
- 10y ago
discardorama 10y ago
Google petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case, joined by allies including Yahoo, HP, Red Hat, and open source advocates, but was rebuffed. Microsoft, EMC, and NetApp urged the high court to let the Federal Circuit ruling stand, and that's what happened. WHY?? And here I thought Microsoft was coming around. Fuck these assholes (and EMC and NetApp too). What do these people have to gain by letting the ruling stand? It just makes interop harder. And here they are tapping into the Linux API shamelessly[1]. Shame on you fuckers. [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/04/why-microsoft-needed-to-make-windows-run-linux-software/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/04/why-mi...
- drivebyops 10y ago
  It's in their interest since they have an open alternative in .net core
- openmosix 10y ago
  you can't teach an old dog new tricks
- coderdude 10y ago
  I can think of a few good reasons: - Microsoft benefits when Google's mobile platform is hurt. - Microsoft has many APIs so why the heck would they want to overturn a decision that puts them in a position of power? If those weren't enough, Google has poached Microsoft talent for years. Maybe there are people at Microsoft who just don't like Google and will work to screw them over. Most likely though it's more to do with the two reasons I listed above. Plus, a little too much emotion in your post. Hard to believe you can feel any emotion about this whatsoever let along being basically pissed off. This is super boring tech news.
  - cle 10y ago
    Microsoft also has a competing platform to Java that might benefit greatly if Java's open foundations were shaken: .NET
- pekk 10y ago
forrestthewoods 10y ago
So what would actually happen for reals in a copyrighted API universe? If someone wants people to interact with their API (such as a website) they will obviously license their API in such a way. And if they don't they won't. So, what terrible things would happen? Most programmers agree it'd be terrible. I trust the masses. But for discussion's sake could someone provide a concrete example or two? Somewhat related, I believe ARM's instruction set is protected. Probably by patents? I've always felt that source code should NOT be patentable but SHOULD (and is) be copyrighted. Where an API falls and how to draw that line I'm not sure.
- d--b 10y ago
  To be clear, what is at stake is not using the API, it is to copy the API. In the case of a website, let's assume that you created ws.com, and that you developed an API that answered 'A' when you call ws.com/A, and 'B' when you call ws.com/B. Then you could sue anyone who'd develop a different website that behaves the same way even though the implementation itself may be completely different.
  - forrestthewoods 10y ago
    I'm not entirely convinced that's unreasonable. Designing a good API is hard. Most interfaces are terrible. If someone wants to clone wordpress then maybe they should just design their own API. If the Wordpress API is that good then maybe it's worth licensing.
    - swozey 10y ago
      By that logic Ford should copyright a cars brake and gas pedal and force other manufacturers to design completely new interface systems to stop and accelerate cars that aren't brake or gas pedals. Sounds great /s. I don't even know where Cloning WordPress came into your thought process. WordPress runs on top of Apache/nginx. That is what responds to ws.com/a. Interoperability is incredibly important, unless you want to go back to having to run a specific Web browser for every other website that isn't using Web standards / rfcs.
sandGorgon 10y ago
This would pretty much projects like Wine or GNUStep would be illegal. For those who don't remember the days of the Microsoft Empire, this is a pretty big thing. Once AWS becomes a monopoly (which should happen anytime in the 5 to 6 yrs), the only way to challenge the gorilla would be to build an API compatible competitor. This ruling would make it illegal.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  No. There's a fair use defense for interoperability. Wine is clearly built for interoperability purposes, so they are ok. Google's primary difficulty in this case is convincing the jury that they have a fair use defense, when their version of Java is technically incompatible.
  - sandGorgon 10y ago
    What is the fair use ? To topple a monopoly? Or interoperability on Linux - which is a not-intended-for usecase. Becaiy Google can pull the same defense - interoperability on Android. If Google loses, then it's going to be hard to get something like this off the ground again. In fact, every "porting" project is in danger.
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      Your comment isn't coherent, but I think you're asking, "What fair-use defense is Google asserting?" One approach is for Google to say, "Developers expect a reasonable platform that they are familiar with. To give them that, we had to use Java (or C# or similar)." In other words, it is an interoperability defense, but for compatibility with developers, not devices or software.
      - willtim 10y ago
        IMHO such an argument from Google seems weak. Developers were more than happy to learn a new technology when the iPhone and Cocoa/ObjectiveC came along. And now these same developers all seem really keen on moving to Swift, a whole new programming language, because it offers compelling improvements.
cft 10y ago
It was a grave blunder for Google not to buy Sun. Besides Java, they would have gotten MySQL, ZFS and some hardware that would all be useful at Google.
- usrusr 10y ago
  Imagine Google the cloud operator having to tread carefully not to get into political infighting with Google the SPARC manufacturer. Google had very good reasons to stay clear of those recipes for disaster. They could have still done a "Motorola" with Sun, but that's hindsight speaking.
  - spacemanmatt 10y ago
    Pish. Oracle didn't buy Sun for SPARC any more than Google would have. I don't hear anything about SPARC infighting at Oracle.
    - usrusr 10y ago
      Sure. But introducing a hardware division into an organization that did not have one before can not only be useless, it can be harmful. Oracle has much less direct investment in datacenter operation that could suffer from unwanted influence of in-house hardware than Google.
      - spacemanmatt 10y ago
        I still find it a bit silly to think Google would have been menaced by infighting from one of their acquisitions.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mancaus 10y ago
What might this mean for open source platforms that target non-standard Java back-ends? Take scalajs[1] for example. It reimplements Java API's but not for the direct purpose of interoperability with standard Java. I believe this will be the case for Scala native as well. In both those cases, it allows code to be written that targets both, so I would think interoperability would be a strong argument. But is that not the case for Android as well? In this case the reimplementation is in Scala, but it could be argued that the "structure, sequence and organisation" definition of copying could apply. If there is any chance this could be ruled as infringing copyright, then Oracle would have a powerful platform lock-in, and every line of code targeting their API's would contribute further to that. [1] https://github.com/scala-js/scala-js/blob/master/DEVELOPING.md https://github.com/scala-js/scala-js/blob/master/DEVELOPING....
_Codemonkeyism 10y ago
One thought over the last years MS has seen the light, but they haven't. Maybe someone will sue them over their Ubuntu on Windows, it's not about interoperability either.
tzs 10y ago
It should be noted that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in this case does not set precedent for future copyright cases. For more details, see this comment from an earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11377318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11377318
einrealist 10y ago
Of course it is a problem with ecosystems that already built around APIs like JSE/JEE / Java core. It is only a problem, because people did not care much about licenses or questioned copyright in terms of APIs. I believe that APIs are copyrightable. It should be up to the creator to specify licenses that suits his agenda. I believe, if API users care about it and like to build a business on top, only APIs and standards with Copyleft licenses will thrive.
chris_wot 10y ago
Seriously, when a corporation creates a VM and enforces a standard, and provides APIs for use in their framework/software ecosystem - just don't adopt it. If it is done via a Foundation with an API/ABI that is freely available to use - then use this. But never adopt a framework created by a corporation if you can avoid it. And that includes .NET. While the current corporation may be benign, some other rapacious and unethical corporation might buy them out - then you are screwed.
hexagonc 10y ago
Maybe I'm thinking about this incorrectly but Google's use of the Java APIs seem to me to be the quintessential case of fair-use for interoperability. It's not like Android is shipped with a JDK and is constantly exercising the Java API internally on Android; they are only used so that I can write a Java algorithm on my desktop and use the source code to generate Dalvik bytecode that does something roughly similar to what the Java bytecode would do. The Java APIs are just a means to an end. The surface area of the copyright infringement is limited to the desktop Android build tools which convert Java sourcecode and some bytecode into Dalvik, i.e., interoperability. Now, that is only one-way interoperability so maybe that is enough to sway the matter away from fair-use.
dragonwriter 10y ago
One thing to note is that if Google loses, this is going back up the appeal chain and will no doubt take another whack at the Supreme Court on the original issue. We don't know why the Supreme Court denied cert., but among the reasons that Oracle said that it should do so was that the appeal was interlocutory, and there is a preference in appeals courts agains such appeals -- that is, because the ruling that resulted in sending the case back to the trial court to decide the fair use issue, the decision was non-final, and, if the Supreme Court were to hear an appeal on the issue raised (which Oracle also argued that they shouldn't, for other reasons), they should do so only after a final decision in the courts below. Because its possible that that was the reason the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, its certain that should Google lose at trial on the fair use issue, they'll be back up the appeal chain not only on that issue, but also attempting to raise the copyrightability issue with the Supreme Court again. Which may be more inclined to take and decide the issue on a final decision (and, depending how long things take to get through the courts, and what happens in the political sphere, may be a substantially different court than the one that refused the case previously, anyway.) Also, since the patent claims are now gone from the case, I think the inevitable (whoever wins) first appeal from the trial court will now go to the Ninth Circuit and not the Federal Circuit, and its quite possible that the Ninth Circuit will rule differently on the issue than the Federal Circuit did.
spacemanmatt 10y ago
Once again, I just miss Groklaw.
sunstone 10y ago
If it turns out that api's are copyrightable then in the short to medium term this will cause some indigestion. In the longer term though companies and developers will just insist that api copyrights are put in the public domain or they won't use them. Lockin avoidance.

100 points by gman83 10y ago

*In the United States. Let's hope that if this goes badly, the rest of the world retains some sense of sanity and doesn't allow intellectual property laws to be used to restrict essential principles like interoperability.

trimtab 10y ago
That likely depends on what trade agreements exist between your country and the US. The dominoes could fall quite quickly.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Indeed, though that is exactly the sort of reason TTIP is starting to attract attention for all the wrong reasons here in Europe.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

maxlybbert 10y ago

If I remember correctly, the appeals court did not rule that APIs are copyrighted, only that they might be copyrightable in some cases. Judge Alsup had ruled that they couldn't be copyrighted; that if you used the four-factor test, you would always always come to the "outside copyright protection" answer in all cases.

zerocrates 10y ago
The Federal Circuit didn't remand on the question of copyrightability, it reversed. In other words, it explicitly held that the Java APIs at issue in the case were entitled to copyright protection, not merely that an API could be.
- deciplex 10y ago
  I don't think you're necessarily contradicting maxlybbert, if the Federal Circuit only reversed the lower court on the question of the Java API in particular.
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  I had to dig up the ruling ( https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021.opinion.5-7-2014.1.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021... ). It looks like my memory was faulty: "Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement finding as to the 37 Java packages. Because the jury deadlocked on fair use, we remand for further consideration of Google’s fair use defense in light of this decision" (pg. 5).
zmmmmm 10y ago
Isn't such uncertainty by itself a death sentence for a vast range users relying on incorporation of APIs into their software? Can open source projects and small developers employ lawyers to decide if their particular use is "fair"? It seems to me that anything other than an extremely clear cut decision is going to be a disaster for the software industry here.
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  I certainly prefer a simple rule so that I don't need to ask an attorney whether a particular API is copyrighted before I start working. But I found the original article misleading in a few aspects, and wanted to clarify things before the discussion turned silly over misunderstandings. It's also true that courts are expected to come to the right conclusion for the right reason. If a company spent years telling people they were free to use some particular API, then sued them for doing so, it would be important to distinguish between a case where the API isn't copyrightable and a case where the API is copyrightable but that people had permission to create derivative works based on that API. For some reason, many people are unable to make that distinction when talking about things around the water cooler.

nathanaldensr 10y ago

This whole thing is unbelievable to me. We have Oracle spending who knows how much money suing Google and claiming that APIs are copyrightable. At the same time they, along with virtually every software company ever, rely on documented, standardized, ubiquitous protocols like IP, TCP/IP, and HTTP to create software that does anything useful. Even the most basic notepad or calculator application relies on APIs to function. I cannot imagine a world that forces us to treat every use of an API as a must-be-legally-contracted integration. Even the most trivial applications would never get completed because the cost just to agree to all these contracts would exceed any ability to generate profit from the resulting software. If Oracle wins then in a way this might actually be good for open source; software developers would seek out the path of least resistance: APIs that could be licensed freely. This could simply extend the push of open source code further to APIs.

curt15 10y ago
It's ironic that one of Oracle's core products (https://www.oracle.com/linux/operating-system/index.html https://www.oracle.com/linux/operating-system/index.html) was created by the very practice that they are trying to outlaw, as an independent implementation of proprietary software (belonging to AT&T).
- WildUtah 10y ago
  Oracle's core product is Oracle database. That is a product based on SQL, an API language invented by IBM's Codd, Boyce, and Chamberlin in 1970-1974. Oracle developed Oracle database before IBM offered standardized free royalty-free licensing, so Oracle's core product, according to Oracle's legal theory, belongs to IBM.
ktRolster 10y ago
There's a strong fair use defense for interoperability (Sony v Connectix). In the hypothetical situation that someone claimed copyright on TCP/IP, presumably that would be a strong enough defense. Google is in difficulty here because they didn't use Java for purposes of interoperability; their version isn't even compatible. If they had, Oracle would have no case. The appeals court left open the question of whether Java being easier for developers because they already know Java counts as a fair use defense. It might count, and then Google is free. If Oracle wins then in a way this might actually be good for open source; software developers would seek out the path of least resistance: APIs that could be licensed freely. That is why the FSF supported Oracle before the supreme court.

jakelarkin 10y ago

I suspect if Oracle's wins the case ... 1) they will win a lot of money in the near term but it will greatly diminish the popularity of Java/JVM in the long run because most tech companies shudder at the thought of having Oracle be the slumlord of their core program language. 2) there will be a painful transition of FUD and lawsuits but open source languages/libraries will be ultimately become stronger in industry b/c the licenses can easily be extended to API rights. Restrictively or vaguely licensed code will be looked up on with greater suspicion.

MichaelGG 10y ago
I highly doubt the kinds of companies that buy Oracle really care about Oracle's legal tactics.
snambi 10y ago
There is no point using java, when Oracle can sue you anytime for any reason. Time to get away from Java, if oracle wins.
- dragandj 10y ago
  Only if you violate Java's GPL license. Google took a GPL code and licensed it under a different license - that's why they are sued. So, even if Google looses, that basically strengthens the open source case AND Java, meaning that you can not hijack Java (GPL) and make its offshot non-free (in a copyleft sense).
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Google took a GPL code and licensed it under a different license - that's why they are sued. The only code that was alleged to be copied were a few test files (which weren't even distributed) and a 9-line function called "rangeCheck". There was a second copyright claim on the APIs, but Oracle didn't claim the code was copied, just that the reimplementation had the same "structure, sequence and organization" (that is, same names and arguments).
10y ago

discardorama 10y ago

Google petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case, joined by allies including Yahoo, HP, Red Hat, and open source advocates, but was rebuffed. Microsoft, EMC, and NetApp urged the high court to let the Federal Circuit ruling stand, and that's what happened. WHY?? And here I thought Microsoft was coming around. Fuck these assholes (and EMC and NetApp too). What do these people have to gain by letting the ruling stand? It just makes interop harder. And here they are tapping into the Linux API shamelessly[1]. Shame on you fuckers. [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/04/why-microsoft-needed-to-make-windows-run-linux-software/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/04/why-mi...

drivebyops 10y ago
It's in their interest since they have an open alternative in .net core
openmosix 10y ago
you can't teach an old dog new tricks
coderdude 10y ago
I can think of a few good reasons: - Microsoft benefits when Google's mobile platform is hurt. - Microsoft has many APIs so why the heck would they want to overturn a decision that puts them in a position of power? If those weren't enough, Google has poached Microsoft talent for years. Maybe there are people at Microsoft who just don't like Google and will work to screw them over. Most likely though it's more to do with the two reasons I listed above. Plus, a little too much emotion in your post. Hard to believe you can feel any emotion about this whatsoever let along being basically pissed off. This is super boring tech news.
- cle 10y ago
  Microsoft also has a competing platform to Java that might benefit greatly if Java's open foundations were shaken: .NET
pekk 10y ago

forrestthewoods 10y ago

So what would actually happen for reals in a copyrighted API universe? If someone wants people to interact with their API (such as a website) they will obviously license their API in such a way. And if they don't they won't. So, what terrible things would happen? Most programmers agree it'd be terrible. I trust the masses. But for discussion's sake could someone provide a concrete example or two? Somewhat related, I believe ARM's instruction set is protected. Probably by patents? I've always felt that source code should NOT be patentable but SHOULD (and is) be copyrighted. Where an API falls and how to draw that line I'm not sure.

d--b 10y ago
To be clear, what is at stake is not using the API, it is to copy the API. In the case of a website, let's assume that you created ws.com, and that you developed an API that answered 'A' when you call ws.com/A, and 'B' when you call ws.com/B. Then you could sue anyone who'd develop a different website that behaves the same way even though the implementation itself may be completely different.
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  I'm not entirely convinced that's unreasonable. Designing a good API is hard. Most interfaces are terrible. If someone wants to clone wordpress then maybe they should just design their own API. If the Wordpress API is that good then maybe it's worth licensing.
  - swozey 10y ago
    By that logic Ford should copyright a cars brake and gas pedal and force other manufacturers to design completely new interface systems to stop and accelerate cars that aren't brake or gas pedals. Sounds great /s. I don't even know where Cloning WordPress came into your thought process. WordPress runs on top of Apache/nginx. That is what responds to ws.com/a. Interoperability is incredibly important, unless you want to go back to having to run a specific Web browser for every other website that isn't using Web standards / rfcs.

sandGorgon 10y ago

This would pretty much projects like Wine or GNUStep would be illegal. For those who don't remember the days of the Microsoft Empire, this is a pretty big thing. Once AWS becomes a monopoly (which should happen anytime in the 5 to 6 yrs), the only way to challenge the gorilla would be to build an API compatible competitor. This ruling would make it illegal.

ktRolster 10y ago
No. There's a fair use defense for interoperability. Wine is clearly built for interoperability purposes, so they are ok. Google's primary difficulty in this case is convincing the jury that they have a fair use defense, when their version of Java is technically incompatible.
- sandGorgon 10y ago
  What is the fair use ? To topple a monopoly? Or interoperability on Linux - which is a not-intended-for usecase. Becaiy Google can pull the same defense - interoperability on Android. If Google loses, then it's going to be hard to get something like this off the ground again. In fact, every "porting" project is in danger.
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    Your comment isn't coherent, but I think you're asking, "What fair-use defense is Google asserting?" One approach is for Google to say, "Developers expect a reasonable platform that they are familiar with. To give them that, we had to use Java (or C# or similar)." In other words, it is an interoperability defense, but for compatibility with developers, not devices or software.
    - willtim 10y ago
      IMHO such an argument from Google seems weak. Developers were more than happy to learn a new technology when the iPhone and Cocoa/ObjectiveC came along. And now these same developers all seem really keen on moving to Swift, a whole new programming language, because it offers compelling improvements.

cft 10y ago

It was a grave blunder for Google not to buy Sun. Besides Java, they would have gotten MySQL, ZFS and some hardware that would all be useful at Google.

usrusr 10y ago
Imagine Google the cloud operator having to tread carefully not to get into political infighting with Google the SPARC manufacturer. Google had very good reasons to stay clear of those recipes for disaster. They could have still done a "Motorola" with Sun, but that's hindsight speaking.
- spacemanmatt 10y ago
  Pish. Oracle didn't buy Sun for SPARC any more than Google would have. I don't hear anything about SPARC infighting at Oracle.
  - usrusr 10y ago
    Sure. But introducing a hardware division into an organization that did not have one before can not only be useless, it can be harmful. Oracle has much less direct investment in datacenter operation that could suffer from unwanted influence of in-house hardware than Google.
    - spacemanmatt 10y ago
      I still find it a bit silly to think Google would have been menaced by infighting from one of their acquisitions.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mancaus 10y ago

What might this mean for open source platforms that target non-standard Java back-ends? Take scalajs[1] for example. It reimplements Java API's but not for the direct purpose of interoperability with standard Java. I believe this will be the case for Scala native as well. In both those cases, it allows code to be written that targets both, so I would think interoperability would be a strong argument. But is that not the case for Android as well? In this case the reimplementation is in Scala, but it could be argued that the "structure, sequence and organisation" definition of copying could apply. If there is any chance this could be ruled as infringing copyright, then Oracle would have a powerful platform lock-in, and every line of code targeting their API's would contribute further to that. [1] https://github.com/scala-js/scala-js/blob/master/DEVELOPING.md https://github.com/scala-js/scala-js/blob/master/DEVELOPING....

_Codemonkeyism 10y ago

One thought over the last years MS has seen the light, but they haven't. Maybe someone will sue them over their Ubuntu on Windows, it's not about interoperability either.

tzs 10y ago

It should be noted that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in this case does not set precedent for future copyright cases. For more details, see this comment from an earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11377318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11377318

einrealist 10y ago

Of course it is a problem with ecosystems that already built around APIs like JSE/JEE / Java core. It is only a problem, because people did not care much about licenses or questioned copyright in terms of APIs. I believe that APIs are copyrightable. It should be up to the creator to specify licenses that suits his agenda. I believe, if API users care about it and like to build a business on top, only APIs and standards with Copyleft licenses will thrive.

chris_wot 10y ago

Seriously, when a corporation creates a VM and enforces a standard, and provides APIs for use in their framework/software ecosystem - just don't adopt it. If it is done via a Foundation with an API/ABI that is freely available to use - then use this. But never adopt a framework created by a corporation if you can avoid it. And that includes .NET. While the current corporation may be benign, some other rapacious and unethical corporation might buy them out - then you are screwed.

hexagonc 10y ago

Maybe I'm thinking about this incorrectly but Google's use of the Java APIs seem to me to be the quintessential case of fair-use for interoperability. It's not like Android is shipped with a JDK and is constantly exercising the Java API internally on Android; they are only used so that I can write a Java algorithm on my desktop and use the source code to generate Dalvik bytecode that does something roughly similar to what the Java bytecode would do. The Java APIs are just a means to an end. The surface area of the copyright infringement is limited to the desktop Android build tools which convert Java sourcecode and some bytecode into Dalvik, i.e., interoperability. Now, that is only one-way interoperability so maybe that is enough to sway the matter away from fair-use.

dragonwriter 10y ago

One thing to note is that if Google loses, this is going back up the appeal chain and will no doubt take another whack at the Supreme Court on the original issue. We don't know why the Supreme Court denied cert., but among the reasons that Oracle said that it should do so was that the appeal was interlocutory, and there is a preference in appeals courts agains such appeals -- that is, because the ruling that resulted in sending the case back to the trial court to decide the fair use issue, the decision was non-final, and, if the Supreme Court were to hear an appeal on the issue raised (which Oracle also argued that they shouldn't, for other reasons), they should do so only after a final decision in the courts below. Because its possible that that was the reason the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, its certain that should Google lose at trial on the fair use issue, they'll be back up the appeal chain not only on that issue, but also attempting to raise the copyrightability issue with the Supreme Court again. Which may be more inclined to take and decide the issue on a final decision (and, depending how long things take to get through the courts, and what happens in the political sphere, may be a substantially different court than the one that refused the case previously, anyway.) Also, since the patent claims are now gone from the case, I think the inevitable (whoever wins) first appeal from the trial court will now go to the Ninth Circuit and not the Federal Circuit, and its quite possible that the Ninth Circuit will rule differently on the issue than the Federal Circuit did.

spacemanmatt 10y ago

Once again, I just miss Groklaw.

sunstone 10y ago

If it turns out that api's are copyrightable then in the short to medium term this will cause some indigestion. In the longer term though companies and developers will just insist that api copyrights are put in the public domain or they won't use them. Lockin avoidance.