7 ms·
Stakes Are High in Oracle v. Google, But the Public Has Already Lost
- throwaway2048 11y agoThe court that decided that APIs were copy-writable was a federal patent circuit, their decision is not binding as precedent.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Oletros 11y agoIs it binding in that circuit?
- exabrial 11y agoWhich is a good point, that's a major circuit for tech. Also, what happens if another circuit rules the opposite? Can we start a case in a circuit without incompetent judges? Furthermore, if these judges are elected, they need to be VOTED OUT
- Consultant32452 11y agoGenerally speaking the precedent would not apply across circuits. The law would be interpreted as X in X circuit and Y in Y circuit.
- the_ancient 11y agoThe problem is the First Circuit gets ALL patent cases nationwide, so with this precedent in place anyone wanting to claim copyright infringement on a API will toss in a Patent claim as well to ensure it goes only to the First Circuit With the high court refusing to address the issue, we will never see another court get one of these cases.
- Oletros 11y agoYap, this is what I thought. The easy way to go to that court is tossing a patent claim
- ArchD 11y agoCan one write and have the court enforce a free software licence that discriminates against companies that impose API copyright on others like what Oracle is doing? Something along the lines of: You can use this software, freely distribute it yada yada as long as you do not "pull an Oracle".
- danielbarla 11y agoI'm sure you could (though it would have to be tested in court), but I'm missing the point slightly because Oracle (/Sun) is the original creator of Java, so they would not be building it on top of your license (nor would any other "Oracle" with similar intentions). If this style of licensing became so ubiquitous that essentially everyone in the future demanded it, then I guess it could make sense.
- wolf550e 11y agoImagine all GPL software required the licensee to never enforce API copyright, and if they ever enforced API copyright (over unrelated code), their license to the GPL code was null and void. Then Oracle can't run Linux.
- keht 11y agoerm...this is confusing...what is the EFF saying here? It appears they don't want Google to use the fair use argument. Okay. But what else are they recommending?
- coffeeaddicted 11y agoThat the last decision that API's are copyrighted is already the problem. Google - or anyone else - shouldn't have to need to use the fair use argument for this. This is already a law suit which shouldn't be necessary.
- mikekchar 11y agoThis idea that APIs are copyrighted in the US is a bigger problem beyond its borders. I don't know how familiar Americans are about how aggressively the US pushes its own legal interpretations of copyright law into other countries, but it is a continuing hassle. The main problem here is that many countries do not have fair use! So if the legal interpretation that APIs are copyrighted spreads, it doesn't matter if it is fair use in the US. Even if countries specifically enact laws to exclude APIs from copyright law, you can bet that there will be huge pressure from the US to include it. The Java trap after all -- only worse. We can't even reimplement it. We can't even implement to specs unless there is a license agreement (and we thought that patents were bad...)! I hate to be Chicken Little, but the sky does seem to be moving ominously quickly in the downward direction.
- woliveirajr 11y agoIn some countries, like Brazil, softwares are not copyrighted, nor ideas. They are considered as "art", like a book, so you can't copy, use, etc., without authorization. But you can get the idea and rewrite it. You can't use the same buttons from some Microsoft product, but nothing stops you from deciding that a disk symbol means "save".
- chc 11y agoThat sounds like copyright.
- raverbashing 11y agoAnyone who uses or is considering to use an Oracle product should pay attention to their litigation history
- B1FF_PSUVM 11y agoTheir lawyers will be getting in touch with you shortly.
- rdtsc 11y agoWell,the opposite is true as well -- if you use an Oracle product, you've paid for it, you are safe. If you use a product that seems unrelated but could somehow infringe on Oracle's patent, then could have lawyers come after you. Reminds me of the story with Suse Linux paying Microsft protection money for allegedly infringing on their patents.
- the_ancient 11y ago>>if you use an Oracle product, you've paid for it, you are safe. Clearly you have never dealt with Oracle Licensing.....
- throwawaykf05 11y agoThis raises an interesting question: Oracle licensing horror stories apart, how many times has Oracle actually sued a customer?
- dminor 11y agoAsk the state of Oregon
- 88e282102ae2e5b 11y agoLet's say Google loses this case. What are the implications for my free, open source software? And my closed source commercial software?
- coldpie 11y agoIt's unclear, since this case is basically making all software illegal in retrospect. Browsers freely implement each others' APIs; SQL servers all use the same API developed by a myriad of entities; the Unix API has been copied over and over and it's impossible to determine ownership. This was a really, really, really bad decision, and it will get worse if Google loses the fair use case. If you thought software patents were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.
- throwawaykf05 11y agoIANAL, but my take: Are you re-implementing anybody else's API without their permission? If not, this has absolutely no bearing on you. Hopefully a real lawyer can shed more light.
- sangnoir 11y ago> What are the implications for my free, open source software? And my closed source commercial software? Software that implements other party's APIs might be obligated to agree to a licensing agreement - projects like Wine, Samba and various 3rd-party emulators. Ironically, Microsoft's discontinued, Android-compatible project Astoria would be exposed (to both Google and Oracle) - Microsoft submitted an amicus in the first Oracle v Google case supporting Oracle's cause. I am not sure if Xamarin- and Cordova-/Phonegap-type projects would be subject to Apple's lawsuits. I also suspect web-APIs might also become risky, making it possibly for Amazon to sue you for providing AWS-compatible APIs[1] for example Disclamer: I am not a lawyer, this is just my layman's perspective. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_(software)
- sandGorgon 11y agoExactly. And I'm absolutely expecting an AWS lawsuit in the next couple of years.
- puppetmaster3 11y agoIt's simple, as a professional developer (that gets paid, more is better) I want companies to get paid for software and well. When they don't, I'm not happy, so I hope Oracle wins. But Google will win, not because they are right. Oracle's lawyers are idiots as they can't show it's same. For example run apache http client jar on android and java. It's same. Idiots. And would you want Google to violate GPL?
- Jtsummers 11y agoIt's my understanding that the problem is not with source theft/copying in violation of licensing. It's with cloning an API. If Oracle (or anyone) can copyright an API then we might as well pack up and go home. By that measure, you make a new JavaScript library for LeftPad and copyright the API along with the source. Now people start using your library. But it's inefficient. So I come along and clone it, make it faster, better, stronger, the $6 million LeftPad-compatible clone. You can sue me for violating your API copyright. Welcome to the end.
- throwawaykf05 11y agoThat is what Chicken Little would like you to believe, but you always have the option of devising your own API, call it prefixWithChars. If your implementation really is that much better, people will go through the effort of migrating their software. The sky is not falling.
- Jtsummers 11y agoBut it's not a compatible API. At that point, I have a second library and everyone has to rewrite their code to use it. This defeats one of the main benefits of having libraries in the first place. The benefit of a library, fundamentally, is that any library with a compatible interface (described by the API) can be dropped in and used in place of another library without modification to the calling code. Cloning functionality is not the same thing if we have to put a prefix: thrawaykf05s_leftPad or Jtsummers_leftPad in front of everything. In theory, as a developer using dynamically linked libraries, I can drop in any version of a library without recompiling. As a user that means you can drop in AMD's OpenGL implementation or a GPL implementation or Nvidia's and see no difference in how you launch your program (though you'd see a difference in performance and perhaps behavior). (OpenGL isn't a great example because the consortium running it won't do this, but it is a great example because there are many implementations.) Now, as a developer you have to develop 100 code paths to handle each potential OpenGL implementation. Or maybe some nice person does that for you with a wrapper library. But now that wrapper library API is also copyrighted and it's out of date. So another API comes into existence that wraps it AND adds new APIs to its backend. That'd be really fucking stupid.
- snarfy 11y agoOracle employees are only shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to work for them. Guys, it's a nice, healthy job market out there. Please consider.
- Mayzie 11y agoWhat I don't understand, is why other big tech organisations don't join Google on this (like Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Red Hat, IBM, Intel, etc)? The result will obviously affect them, whether it is now or in the long run.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- coldpie 11y agoMicrosoft actually argued in favor of Oracle.