5 ms·

Is it Oracle's position that all implementations of the Java APIs (or partial implementations) are illegal, unless it's specifically allowed by Oracle? That so

Is it Oracle's position that all implementations of the Java APIs (or partial implementations) are illegal, unless it's specifically allowed by Oracle? That sounds ludicrous. What about unit testing libraries, for example?

valleyer 10y ago
This also means that Wine, GNUstep, FreeDOS, etc., are illegal, right?
- metafunctor 10y ago
  Yes, it would seem logical to me.
- dgregd 10y ago
  What about Oracle Linux and Bash on Windows?
- ddeck 10y ago
  I am far from an expert in these matters, but as I understand it there are fair use exemptions when the purpose of the implementation is for interoperability and compatibility. Given WINE's purpose, they would seem to be on safer ground. I believe this was one of Google's initial arguments, but as the DoJ stated when they weighed in: >"The Android platform uses the Java programming language, but [Google] purposely designed Android not to be compatible with the Java platform or interoperable with Java programs." [1] [1] http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/05/us-dept-of-justice-finds-googles.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/05/us-dept-of-justice-finds-...
  - abecedarius 10y ago
    A strange notion of 'not compatible'. I wrote a Java library in 1996 that's been used unchanged in Android apps. (Yes, the app author has to compile it to Dalvik.) [Added: it was always my understanding that this ability to use Java code was the whole point of using the Java API.]
  - curt15 10y ago
    What cases codify interoperability as a fair use exception? Wouldn't perfect interoperability have a bigger impact on the commercial value of existing products by making it easier for customers to switch to the drop-in replacement?
- protomyth 10y ago
  I think Apple would have a tough time arguing GNUstep was illegal given the wording of the OpenStep standard document NeXT and Sun produced in 1994. It was meant to be a standard.
keypusher 10y ago
Would this also apply to projects like OpenJDK, that are alternative JVM implementations? If so, why did Oracle never go after them?
- punctilio 10y ago
  OpenJDK isn't a good example, as Oracle owns copyright on it.
- valleyer 10y ago
  OpenJDK is code released by Sun. Better analogies would be Harmony (what Android used) or GNU Classpath. They did not go after those, one presumes, because those projects don't have billions of dollars to be sued for.
- jinst8gmi 10y ago
  OpenJDK is the official reference implementation of the JVM, so that would be a little silly... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK http://openjdk.java.net/faq/ http://openjdk.java.net/faq/
amelius 10y ago
Well, even though I don't like Oracle's standpoint here, I still feel that often the design of an API is much more work than the implementation of it. Implementing something is often just doing "the logical thing", whereas designing an API requires a lot of trial and error, and planning. An API describes in a way the greater design of the system (how things connect together), whereas an implementation is just filling in of the details.
- option_greek 10y ago
  It might be hard but is it creative enough to warrant a copyright ? That said, Google should have licensed Java when the good guys were around. Now they are dealing with bloodsuckers :)
- ctvo 10y ago
  Agreed in this particular case the API was much more valuable than the implementation. You can't mean all APIs require more work than implementations though? Implement the class AI with this API: start, stop.
- metafunctor 10y ago
  I agree that API documents (say, interface code and it's documentation) are works that fall under copyright. This case is more about fair use. Is Google's usage of the Java APIs fair use, or a copyright infringement?
  - mikekchar 10y ago
    This is a very common misunderstanding of fair use. Fair use is copyright infringement. It's just a legal defence when you are being sued. This is one of the big problems with fair use in the US. If you intend to use a fair use defence, you will almost certainly go to court. You will not get a summary judgement of "Oh that's obviously fair use, so we don't have to have a trial". This means you will have to pay a lot of money for a lawyer. Having said that, IANAL and I could easily be wrong. This is not legal advice. The real question (which seems already to have been answered) is are APIs a copywritable work, and if so is an implementation that follows the API a derived work? So is it an infringement if I simply implement the API? The original court decision said it is not an infringement, the appeal said it is and the supreme court decided not to hear a further appeal. That's why we are left with a fair use defence. This is quite spectacularly bad for the industry IMHO, but there is not much we can do about it now other than to have US citizens lobby congress to pass a new copyright law (which seems pretty unlikely). If it turns out to be fair use, that will make it slightly less bad. However, expect rent-seekers to start coming out of the woodwork to sue for implementations of specifications anyway. They know that they can simply sue you for less money than it will cost to defend yourself with a fair use defence. Expect this to be the new patent troll.
crispyambulance 10y ago
It is clearly not ludicrous, as this fight has been going on for 6 years now. Oracle believes in it, and of course their well-compensated lawyers believe in it. What I don't understand is WHY Oracle wants to go through with long legal battle. They make good revenue on their database ecosystem as well as some other products of dubious value (has anyone ever enjoyed Oracle EBS?). They've secured their interests in Java on the serverside, android is not a threat there. Is this REALLY all about monetizing their purchase of Sun Microsystems? Seems like a round-about way to make money and it certainly carries a lot of risk.
- Corrado 10y ago
  Doesn't this action also warn other companies away from using Java (or any other Oracle technology) for anything ever again? It would if I were running a company or had purchasing power. I'm guessing that Oracle is looking at the short term gains and ignoring the long term impacts. Business as usual in the corporate world. :/
scholia 10y ago
You won't like this, but.... Sun's documentation specified that the APIs were copyright, and in an email on March 24, 2006, Andy Rubin wrote that: "Java.lang apis are copyrighted ... Sun owns the brand and ip [and} Sun gets to say who they license the tck to" (edited for clarity). That was before Sun went open source. By 2007, Google was making serious efforts to "scrub" its code for references to Java. In 2010, it said the "bad words" were "Java, License and Patent". On April 9, 2008 Google's Alan Donovan wrote an internal email to java-users@google.com explaining how to turn off "Sun proprietary API" warnings issued by the Java compiler. http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/heres-mountain-of-willful-infringement.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/heres-mountain-of-willful... It's pretty clear that (a) Google knew it was using copyright materials and (b) trying to conceal the fact, rather than taking out a license. On May 9, 2014, the Federal Circuit court ruled that the Java APIs are copyrightable. 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... Arguing that bad laws are bad does not stop them from being laws....

valleyer 10y ago

This also means that Wine, GNUstep, FreeDOS, etc., are illegal, right?

metafunctor 10y ago
Yes, it would seem logical to me.
dgregd 10y ago
What about Oracle Linux and Bash on Windows?
ddeck 10y ago
I am far from an expert in these matters, but as I understand it there are fair use exemptions when the purpose of the implementation is for interoperability and compatibility. Given WINE's purpose, they would seem to be on safer ground. I believe this was one of Google's initial arguments, but as the DoJ stated when they weighed in: >"The Android platform uses the Java programming language, but [Google] purposely designed Android not to be compatible with the Java platform or interoperable with Java programs." [1] [1] http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/05/us-dept-of-justice-finds-googles.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/05/us-dept-of-justice-finds-...
- abecedarius 10y ago
  A strange notion of 'not compatible'. I wrote a Java library in 1996 that's been used unchanged in Android apps. (Yes, the app author has to compile it to Dalvik.) [Added: it was always my understanding that this ability to use Java code was the whole point of using the Java API.]
- curt15 10y ago
  What cases codify interoperability as a fair use exception? Wouldn't perfect interoperability have a bigger impact on the commercial value of existing products by making it easier for customers to switch to the drop-in replacement?
protomyth 10y ago
I think Apple would have a tough time arguing GNUstep was illegal given the wording of the OpenStep standard document NeXT and Sun produced in 1994. It was meant to be a standard.

keypusher 10y ago

Would this also apply to projects like OpenJDK, that are alternative JVM implementations? If so, why did Oracle never go after them?

punctilio 10y ago
OpenJDK isn't a good example, as Oracle owns copyright on it.
valleyer 10y ago
OpenJDK is code released by Sun. Better analogies would be Harmony (what Android used) or GNU Classpath. They did not go after those, one presumes, because those projects don't have billions of dollars to be sued for.
jinst8gmi 10y ago
OpenJDK is the official reference implementation of the JVM, so that would be a little silly... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK http://openjdk.java.net/faq/ http://openjdk.java.net/faq/

amelius 10y ago

Well, even though I don't like Oracle's standpoint here, I still feel that often the design of an API is much more work than the implementation of it. Implementing something is often just doing "the logical thing", whereas designing an API requires a lot of trial and error, and planning. An API describes in a way the greater design of the system (how things connect together), whereas an implementation is just filling in of the details.

option_greek 10y ago
It might be hard but is it creative enough to warrant a copyright ? That said, Google should have licensed Java when the good guys were around. Now they are dealing with bloodsuckers :)
ctvo 10y ago
Agreed in this particular case the API was much more valuable than the implementation. You can't mean all APIs require more work than implementations though? Implement the class AI with this API: start, stop.
metafunctor 10y ago
I agree that API documents (say, interface code and it's documentation) are works that fall under copyright. This case is more about fair use. Is Google's usage of the Java APIs fair use, or a copyright infringement?
- mikekchar 10y ago
  This is a very common misunderstanding of fair use. Fair use is copyright infringement. It's just a legal defence when you are being sued. This is one of the big problems with fair use in the US. If you intend to use a fair use defence, you will almost certainly go to court. You will not get a summary judgement of "Oh that's obviously fair use, so we don't have to have a trial". This means you will have to pay a lot of money for a lawyer. Having said that, IANAL and I could easily be wrong. This is not legal advice. The real question (which seems already to have been answered) is are APIs a copywritable work, and if so is an implementation that follows the API a derived work? So is it an infringement if I simply implement the API? The original court decision said it is not an infringement, the appeal said it is and the supreme court decided not to hear a further appeal. That's why we are left with a fair use defence. This is quite spectacularly bad for the industry IMHO, but there is not much we can do about it now other than to have US citizens lobby congress to pass a new copyright law (which seems pretty unlikely). If it turns out to be fair use, that will make it slightly less bad. However, expect rent-seekers to start coming out of the woodwork to sue for implementations of specifications anyway. They know that they can simply sue you for less money than it will cost to defend yourself with a fair use defence. Expect this to be the new patent troll.

crispyambulance 10y ago

It is clearly not ludicrous, as this fight has been going on for 6 years now. Oracle believes in it, and of course their well-compensated lawyers believe in it. What I don't understand is WHY Oracle wants to go through with long legal battle. They make good revenue on their database ecosystem as well as some other products of dubious value (has anyone ever enjoyed Oracle EBS?). They've secured their interests in Java on the serverside, android is not a threat there. Is this REALLY all about monetizing their purchase of Sun Microsystems? Seems like a round-about way to make money and it certainly carries a lot of risk.

Corrado 10y ago
Doesn't this action also warn other companies away from using Java (or any other Oracle technology) for anything ever again? It would if I were running a company or had purchasing power. I'm guessing that Oracle is looking at the short term gains and ignoring the long term impacts. Business as usual in the corporate world. :/

scholia 10y ago

You won't like this, but.... Sun's documentation specified that the APIs were copyright, and in an email on March 24, 2006, Andy Rubin wrote that: "Java.lang apis are copyrighted ... Sun owns the brand and ip [and} Sun gets to say who they license the tck to" (edited for clarity). That was before Sun went open source. By 2007, Google was making serious efforts to "scrub" its code for references to Java. In 2010, it said the "bad words" were "Java, License and Patent". On April 9, 2008 Google's Alan Donovan wrote an internal email to java-users@google.com explaining how to turn off "Sun proprietary API" warnings issued by the Java compiler. http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/heres-mountain-of-willful-infringement.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/heres-mountain-of-willful... It's pretty clear that (a) Google knew it was using copyright materials and (b) trying to conceal the fact, rather than taking out a license. On May 9, 2014, the Federal Circuit court ruled that the Java APIs are copyrightable. 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... Arguing that bad laws are bad does not stop them from being laws....