5 ms·

The more I read about this case the more I think Oracle is right. And the more I think most people, HN readers included, are grossly misinformed. In the last b

The more I read about this case the more I think Oracle is right. And the more I think most people, HN readers included, are grossly misinformed. In the last big thread I asked if anyone could provide concrete examples of terrible things that would happen if Oracle won. I didn't get a good response but the comment was buried. My question stands if anyone has a good answer. I'm very open to discussion here.

keypusher 10y ago
It's really not about whether bad things would happen or not. It's about what is the correct decision. I define an interface for a box. It has methods push() and pull(). I implement a wooden box that conforms to this interface. Many happy users push and pull my box via the interface all day. Someone comes along and implements a metal box that conforms to my interface, so that users can push and pull a metal box. I sue that person and win. Does this sound correct to you? What bad things would happen? * Compiling against any C header files, such as kernel headers, is called into question. This has massive ramifications because of many for-profit businesses that compile against the headers of GPL code, as is standard practice. * Amazon S3 API is widely implemented by other cloud storage providers. Sharing an API between products makes it easy for customers to switch one application between different providers. * This is copyright, not patent. Which means there is no requirement to register a design, no oversight and no cost. * It could cause a rush of people just writing obvious API combinations to be the one who "got there first" and potentially harm their competition. https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-you-cant-copyright-an-api https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-you-cant...
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  > I sue that person and win. Does this sound correct to you? Sure. That's plausibly reasonable. The API definition is significantly more detailed that just the method names. The metal box maker could easily have created their own API. But instead they use an API created by someone else. * Compiling against headers is an important issue. That would be bad. I raised this question in the last thread but it didn't seem to be an issue. * A closed S3 API seems fine to me. Amazon doesn't have an obligation to make switching easy. At the same time they'd have incentives to make their API open to encourage people to start using S3. Permissive open source software is exceptionally popular these days. If Amazon wants to write a closed API that presents an opportunity for someone else to write an open API. * I think we'd be in a much better place if software could NOT be patented but APIs were copyrighted. Implementation code is already under copyright. * I don't think "got there first" is a real concern. TCP and UDP both define connect(), send(), and receive(). But they are radically different APIs with radically different specifications. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is a good discussion.
pritambaral 10y ago
If APIs are copyrightable (even when documented and released for free in the open): - Wine and ReactOS would become illegal. In fact, any layer to run Windows apps would become illegal. The only way to run a Windows app would be through Microsoft's blessing That's a pretty big one.
- x0x0 10y ago
  and samba / smb? And no reimplementations of the aws apis to port out of aws.
fahrradflucht 10y ago
I think this amicus brief is a good start: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/07/google_v_oracle_computer-scientists-certpetition-amicus-brief_14-410_final.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/07/google_v_oracle_compute...
statictype 10y ago
IANAL but it seems like it would set the precedent that you cannot do clean room implementations that are legal. That would, for example, prevent every browser after Netscape from building javascript into their own browser. It might have prevented Mono from existing. It would have prevented Atom and Sublime from being able to use Textmate syntax files. Are those bad things? I believe they are.
- trhway 10y ago
  >IANAL but it seems like it would set the precedent that you cannot do clean room implementations that are legal. the practice that interfaces are copyrightable seems to has been in place for quite some time. AMD couldn't make Pentium socket compatible CPU. We have LGPL for the same reason. The miracle of IBM compatible BIOS may be attributed only to accidental benevolence of IBM :) Google is on the receiving end right now, yet the copyright protection of the interfaces plus DMCA is what gave rise to the "platforms", and Google just happens to be a one of the 3 largest ones. Unfortunately one can't have it both ways. Anyway, Stalman's preaching may happen to be just a very concrete practical advise after all :)
  - dpark 10y ago
    AMD did make Pentium-socket-compatible CPUs. Also, I would imagine that Socket 5/7 were protected with a patent, not copyright.
    - trhway 10y ago
      i forgot about the Socket 5/7. I was referring to the point of their divergence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices#K5.2C_K6.2C_Athlon.2C_Duron.2C_and_Sempron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices#K5.2C_K... "The K7 was AMD's seventh-generation x86 processor, making its debut on June 23, 1999, under the brand name Athlon. Unlike previous AMD processors, it could not be used on the same motherboards as Intel's, due to licensing issues surrounding Intel's Slot 1 connector, and instead used a Slot A connector..."
onion2k 10y ago
The simplest way to mitigate the risk that you might be sued if your code is too similar to someone else's code is not to share it openly in the first place. If Oracle win then every large corporation will have to ask the question "Can we release our code? Do we know it's all ours and not something a developer took from a closed project[1]?". Many will choose to not to because the risk is too high. [1] Knowingly or otherwise. If a dev bases their code on a Stackover Flow answer they could be unwittingly using closed code.
- nunobrito 10y ago
  Safety by obscurity might not be a magic bullet. I'd still be able to tell much just from the compiled binaries. For example, I wouldn't detect your code snippets from stackoverflow but would be capable of creating a very comprehensive list of third-party dependencies you are using. There are companies completely dedicated to the software originality topic: http://triplecheck.net/ http://triplecheck.net/
return0 10y ago
What are the precedents similar to this case? Surely there must have been some litigation over API use before?

keypusher 10y ago

It's really not about whether bad things would happen or not. It's about what is the correct decision. I define an interface for a box. It has methods push() and pull(). I implement a wooden box that conforms to this interface. Many happy users push and pull my box via the interface all day. Someone comes along and implements a metal box that conforms to my interface, so that users can push and pull a metal box. I sue that person and win. Does this sound correct to you? What bad things would happen? * Compiling against any C header files, such as kernel headers, is called into question. This has massive ramifications because of many for-profit businesses that compile against the headers of GPL code, as is standard practice. * Amazon S3 API is widely implemented by other cloud storage providers. Sharing an API between products makes it easy for customers to switch one application between different providers. * This is copyright, not patent. Which means there is no requirement to register a design, no oversight and no cost. * It could cause a rush of people just writing obvious API combinations to be the one who "got there first" and potentially harm their competition. https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-you-cant-copyright-an-api https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-you-cant...

forrestthewoods 10y ago
> I sue that person and win. Does this sound correct to you? Sure. That's plausibly reasonable. The API definition is significantly more detailed that just the method names. The metal box maker could easily have created their own API. But instead they use an API created by someone else. * Compiling against headers is an important issue. That would be bad. I raised this question in the last thread but it didn't seem to be an issue. * A closed S3 API seems fine to me. Amazon doesn't have an obligation to make switching easy. At the same time they'd have incentives to make their API open to encourage people to start using S3. Permissive open source software is exceptionally popular these days. If Amazon wants to write a closed API that presents an opportunity for someone else to write an open API. * I think we'd be in a much better place if software could NOT be patented but APIs were copyrighted. Implementation code is already under copyright. * I don't think "got there first" is a real concern. TCP and UDP both define connect(), send(), and receive(). But they are radically different APIs with radically different specifications. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is a good discussion.

pritambaral 10y ago

If APIs are copyrightable (even when documented and released for free in the open): - Wine and ReactOS would become illegal. In fact, any layer to run Windows apps would become illegal. The only way to run a Windows app would be through Microsoft's blessing That's a pretty big one.

x0x0 10y ago
and samba / smb? And no reimplementations of the aws apis to port out of aws.

fahrradflucht 10y ago

I think this amicus brief is a good start: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/07/google_v_oracle_computer-scientists-certpetition-amicus-brief_14-410_final.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/07/google_v_oracle_compute...

statictype 10y ago

IANAL but it seems like it would set the precedent that you cannot do clean room implementations that are legal. That would, for example, prevent every browser after Netscape from building javascript into their own browser. It might have prevented Mono from existing. It would have prevented Atom and Sublime from being able to use Textmate syntax files. Are those bad things? I believe they are.

trhway 10y ago
>IANAL but it seems like it would set the precedent that you cannot do clean room implementations that are legal. the practice that interfaces are copyrightable seems to has been in place for quite some time. AMD couldn't make Pentium socket compatible CPU. We have LGPL for the same reason. The miracle of IBM compatible BIOS may be attributed only to accidental benevolence of IBM :) Google is on the receiving end right now, yet the copyright protection of the interfaces plus DMCA is what gave rise to the "platforms", and Google just happens to be a one of the 3 largest ones. Unfortunately one can't have it both ways. Anyway, Stalman's preaching may happen to be just a very concrete practical advise after all :)
- dpark 10y ago
  AMD did make Pentium-socket-compatible CPUs. Also, I would imagine that Socket 5/7 were protected with a patent, not copyright.
  - trhway 10y ago
    i forgot about the Socket 5/7. I was referring to the point of their divergence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices#K5.2C_K6.2C_Athlon.2C_Duron.2C_and_Sempron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices#K5.2C_K... "The K7 was AMD's seventh-generation x86 processor, making its debut on June 23, 1999, under the brand name Athlon. Unlike previous AMD processors, it could not be used on the same motherboards as Intel's, due to licensing issues surrounding Intel's Slot 1 connector, and instead used a Slot A connector..."

onion2k 10y ago

The simplest way to mitigate the risk that you might be sued if your code is too similar to someone else's code is not to share it openly in the first place. If Oracle win then every large corporation will have to ask the question "Can we release our code? Do we know it's all ours and not something a developer took from a closed project[1]?". Many will choose to not to because the risk is too high. [1] Knowingly or otherwise. If a dev bases their code on a Stackover Flow answer they could be unwittingly using closed code.

nunobrito 10y ago
Safety by obscurity might not be a magic bullet. I'd still be able to tell much just from the compiled binaries. For example, I wouldn't detect your code snippets from stackoverflow but would be capable of creating a very comprehensive list of third-party dependencies you are using. There are companies completely dedicated to the software originality topic: http://triplecheck.net/ http://triplecheck.net/

return0 10y ago

What are the precedents similar to this case? Surely there must have been some litigation over API use before?