4 ms·

Yeah, “stealing” an API and open source, building a successful mobile UI platform (unlike personal/embedded java and Sun’s own failed attempts at fragmentation)

Yeah, “stealing” an API and open source, building a successful mobile UI platform (unlike personal/embedded java and Sun’s own failed attempts at fragmentation) and contributing it free back to open source where it has been used as a base OS for thousands of new products from TVs to drones.

bitwize 9y ago
Regardless, the CAFC has ruled -- twice -- that APIs are subject to copyright. The Supremes are likely to deny cert again, so that stands as the law of the land. You steal someone's API, you pay a penalty. Don't like it? Write your Congressman.
- jkaplowitz 9y ago
  Law of the case, not law of the land. This only stands as law of the land when the plaintiff manages to include a patent claim (even a weak one that later gets thrown out) to force the case under the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction, as happened here. They don't normally hear copyright cases. While I'm sure more such patent claims will get bundled with API copyright claims in the future where a plaintiff can credibly manage that, it's not otherwise the law of the land. (An aside: I think the Federal Circuit may have considered aspects of Ninth Circuit precedent in this ruling, as they're supposed to do for non-patent issues from the Ninth Circuit. Even they might rule differently in cases from other circuits, maybe just making it the law of cases they handle from the Ninth Circuit with significant persuasive impact on how they'd rule on cases from other circuits.) Eventually a normal Ninth (or other) Circuit panel will rule on this. They're not bound by the CAFC ruling, though they will undoubtedly consider it. As soon as one circuit rules otherwise, that will create a circuit split. Eventually, the Supreme Court will want to resolve that circuit split and will grant cert, either changing this bad precedent even for cases that go to the Federal Circuit or truly making it the law of the land. A Supreme Court ruling on this would only affect the current Oracle v Google case if it happens before this case is fully finalized, given the doctrine of res judicata. But it would help future cases, including between these parties about a different topic, as well as between Oracle and other companies about the Java API. With all of that said, contacting representatives in Congress and Senate to make explicit that APIs aren't copyrightable would still be great, as would narrowing the CAFC's jurisdictions to patent claims (and its otherwise specialized areas) or eliminating it entirely.
  - bitwize 9y ago
    As I understand the CAFC to work, subject matter jurisdiction only applies to determining whether CAFC can rule on a case. Once they so rule, that ruling is precedent throughout the land -- irrespective of whether the topic of their ruling fell within their subject-matter jurisdiction.
    - magicalist 9y ago
      > irrespective of whether the topic of their ruling fell within their subject-matter jurisdiction. The opposite. Binding only within their subject-matter jurisdiction. Which is good, because this ruling is so broad it's essentially trying to argue there's no such thing as fair use (because plagiarists arent protected by fair use, and all copyright infringers are plagiarists, and fair use is inherently copyright infringement, therefore...)
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Please don't use the expression "contributing back" on a platform that Google rules with an iron fist. Not only is their draconian licensing contract kept secret, for fear that consumers might realize the sort of behavior Google is up to, but now Google is explicitly implementing block screens for installing the app store on an Android device that isn't adequately under Google's thumb. This isn't the behavior of a company who is "contributing back", it is the behavior of a company doubling down on controlling the industry. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/google-starts-blocking-uncertified-android-devices-from-logging-in/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/google-starts-blocki... The court didn't buy that Android was a gift to society worthy of fair use protection, and at this point, neither will anyone else.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  All irrelevant. If I check out an open source project, expand it significantly, fix tons of bugs, increase performance, and commit the changes upstream, I have contributed back. The fact that I have built another product on top of that isn't 100% open source does not nullify the huge contributions of the former. Chrome isn't open source. Chromium is. Chromium contains V8. V8 alone launched the huge nodejs community. In your mind, because Chrome isn't 100% open source, the fact that you can use pieces of it that are for tremendous benefit to the community doesn't count? Handsets aren't the only thing Android is used for. Virtually every consumer product I see launch these days used some part of Android. TVs, smart speakers, IoT devices, thermostats, car entertainment systems, set top boxes, watches, and on and on. If someone wants to do a Kickstarter on a new piece of HW, the first thing that they're going to thing of is forking a chunk of AOSP, and to deny the immense value this has enabled for people building such devices is absurdly blind. Without ASOP, many of these projects wouldn't even exist. Your positions are transparently hypocritical for someone who was a Windows Mobile fanboy, and rarely says a negative word about Apple or Microsoft's 100% proprietary platforms.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    People in glass houses (or Google offices) should not throw stones. Also, I have a much longer history of criticizing Apple than Google, and give Microsoft significant flak on a regular basis for the way they've managed several aspects of Windows 10... including Mobile. I have no financial investment or implicit bias in any of these companies such as yourself. I have no problem with proprietary software, I have a problem with proprietary software masquerading as open software and trying to use claims like "fair use" for something tightly controlled with secret arrangements and bullying the industry into compliance. I would argue Android offers little benefit to the niches you detail, the only reason other Linux flavors don't make more sense is because they're taking advantage of the fact that they have to have Android developers anyways, because of app support. Android is not a good OS for smart devices, most of the bloat it shoves on top of Linux has little benefit to single-purpose hardware. I don't think Google gets to claim credit for the entire smart device market.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
Do you oppose copyright on all software, i. e. source code, as well? Because I could somewhat understand that sort of IP anarchism, although I wouldn't agree. But I'm having a hard time thinking about a coherent reasoning to see source code as copyrightable, yet deny the same to APIs. Copyright applies to any creative endeavours that reach a certain level of breath and/or depth. Having been involved in a few library projects, I have witnessed quite a few where I would say the API was far more important, and sometimes took more work, than the underlying implementation. Look, for example, at all the work done in standard-setting bodies: RFCs, WHATWG, etc. They are all licensed freely, yes. But the attachment of licenses to those documents implies an acknowledgement by the authors (and the community) that their work falls under copyright.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  Yes, I (personally) oppose patent protection and copyright on software, and barring that, severe time limits, like say, 5 years. You really think an API should be protected from forking or reimplementation for A CENTURY? It's absurd, Oracle agrees with me (see link at bottom) The entire PC industry was launched because clean room re-implementation of the API of the BIOS broke IBM's stranglehold. Is the world better without WINE? Without game or CPU emulators? I am philosophically opposed to the idea of API copyrights especially. This is a corporate battle whose collateral damage is going to harm the entire industry. It's funny how everyone loves forking, until tribalism kicks in, and then people start granting mulligans on philosophy just because of tribal positions on whichever company they don't like. Remember this? http://www.gordoni.com/software-patents/statements/oracle.statement.html http://www.gordoni.com/software-patents/statements/oracle.st... "Oracle Corporation opposes the patentability of software" "A balance of fifty years protection for direct copying of code would continue to be provided by copyright law." Funny how perspective changes if you perform a buyout of a struggling company's assets to use it to shakedown the market.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    We would be using Atari, Amiga and Macs instead, and maybe some UNIX variants as well.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
You mean the platform where one of only very, very few conditions on it's use was to make sure that your implementation was compatible with others?
- cromwellian 9y ago
  The first smartphones had only 128mb of RAM and very slow performance. To remain compatible means supporting Swing, Java2D, CORBA, and a ton of other non-optional APIs included in the JDK. This was not really technically feasible in 2007. For decades, people had been producing Java forks which weren't compatible, Sun didn't do much about them, and even encouraged them. Their main idea was to charge for the TCK and the right to use the Java(tm). Remember Ghost and WabaVM for PalmOS? Remember Kaffe +Classpath? I'd argue that the idea of write-once-run-anywhere with a one-size-fits-all UI layer from mobile to server is a pretty bad idea. Apple seems to understand this, which is why iOS differs from NextSTEP.

bitwize 9y ago

Regardless, the CAFC has ruled -- twice -- that APIs are subject to copyright. The Supremes are likely to deny cert again, so that stands as the law of the land. You steal someone's API, you pay a penalty. Don't like it? Write your Congressman.

jkaplowitz 9y ago
Law of the case, not law of the land. This only stands as law of the land when the plaintiff manages to include a patent claim (even a weak one that later gets thrown out) to force the case under the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction, as happened here. They don't normally hear copyright cases. While I'm sure more such patent claims will get bundled with API copyright claims in the future where a plaintiff can credibly manage that, it's not otherwise the law of the land. (An aside: I think the Federal Circuit may have considered aspects of Ninth Circuit precedent in this ruling, as they're supposed to do for non-patent issues from the Ninth Circuit. Even they might rule differently in cases from other circuits, maybe just making it the law of cases they handle from the Ninth Circuit with significant persuasive impact on how they'd rule on cases from other circuits.) Eventually a normal Ninth (or other) Circuit panel will rule on this. They're not bound by the CAFC ruling, though they will undoubtedly consider it. As soon as one circuit rules otherwise, that will create a circuit split. Eventually, the Supreme Court will want to resolve that circuit split and will grant cert, either changing this bad precedent even for cases that go to the Federal Circuit or truly making it the law of the land. A Supreme Court ruling on this would only affect the current Oracle v Google case if it happens before this case is fully finalized, given the doctrine of res judicata. But it would help future cases, including between these parties about a different topic, as well as between Oracle and other companies about the Java API. With all of that said, contacting representatives in Congress and Senate to make explicit that APIs aren't copyrightable would still be great, as would narrowing the CAFC's jurisdictions to patent claims (and its otherwise specialized areas) or eliminating it entirely.
- bitwize 9y ago
  As I understand the CAFC to work, subject matter jurisdiction only applies to determining whether CAFC can rule on a case. Once they so rule, that ruling is precedent throughout the land -- irrespective of whether the topic of their ruling fell within their subject-matter jurisdiction.
  - magicalist 9y ago
    > irrespective of whether the topic of their ruling fell within their subject-matter jurisdiction. The opposite. Binding only within their subject-matter jurisdiction. Which is good, because this ruling is so broad it's essentially trying to argue there's no such thing as fair use (because plagiarists arent protected by fair use, and all copyright infringers are plagiarists, and fair use is inherently copyright infringement, therefore...)

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Please don't use the expression "contributing back" on a platform that Google rules with an iron fist. Not only is their draconian licensing contract kept secret, for fear that consumers might realize the sort of behavior Google is up to, but now Google is explicitly implementing block screens for installing the app store on an Android device that isn't adequately under Google's thumb. This isn't the behavior of a company who is "contributing back", it is the behavior of a company doubling down on controlling the industry. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/google-starts-blocking-uncertified-android-devices-from-logging-in/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/google-starts-blocki... The court didn't buy that Android was a gift to society worthy of fair use protection, and at this point, neither will anyone else.

cromwellian 9y ago
All irrelevant. If I check out an open source project, expand it significantly, fix tons of bugs, increase performance, and commit the changes upstream, I have contributed back. The fact that I have built another product on top of that isn't 100% open source does not nullify the huge contributions of the former. Chrome isn't open source. Chromium is. Chromium contains V8. V8 alone launched the huge nodejs community. In your mind, because Chrome isn't 100% open source, the fact that you can use pieces of it that are for tremendous benefit to the community doesn't count? Handsets aren't the only thing Android is used for. Virtually every consumer product I see launch these days used some part of Android. TVs, smart speakers, IoT devices, thermostats, car entertainment systems, set top boxes, watches, and on and on. If someone wants to do a Kickstarter on a new piece of HW, the first thing that they're going to thing of is forking a chunk of AOSP, and to deny the immense value this has enabled for people building such devices is absurdly blind. Without ASOP, many of these projects wouldn't even exist. Your positions are transparently hypocritical for someone who was a Windows Mobile fanboy, and rarely says a negative word about Apple or Microsoft's 100% proprietary platforms.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  People in glass houses (or Google offices) should not throw stones. Also, I have a much longer history of criticizing Apple than Google, and give Microsoft significant flak on a regular basis for the way they've managed several aspects of Windows 10... including Mobile. I have no financial investment or implicit bias in any of these companies such as yourself. I have no problem with proprietary software, I have a problem with proprietary software masquerading as open software and trying to use claims like "fair use" for something tightly controlled with secret arrangements and bullying the industry into compliance. I would argue Android offers little benefit to the niches you detail, the only reason other Linux flavors don't make more sense is because they're taking advantage of the fact that they have to have Android developers anyways, because of app support. Android is not a good OS for smart devices, most of the bloat it shoves on top of Linux has little benefit to single-purpose hardware. I don't think Google gets to claim credit for the entire smart device market.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

Do you oppose copyright on all software, i. e. source code, as well? Because I could somewhat understand that sort of IP anarchism, although I wouldn't agree. But I'm having a hard time thinking about a coherent reasoning to see source code as copyrightable, yet deny the same to APIs. Copyright applies to any creative endeavours that reach a certain level of breath and/or depth. Having been involved in a few library projects, I have witnessed quite a few where I would say the API was far more important, and sometimes took more work, than the underlying implementation. Look, for example, at all the work done in standard-setting bodies: RFCs, WHATWG, etc. They are all licensed freely, yes. But the attachment of licenses to those documents implies an acknowledgement by the authors (and the community) that their work falls under copyright.

cromwellian 9y ago
Yes, I (personally) oppose patent protection and copyright on software, and barring that, severe time limits, like say, 5 years. You really think an API should be protected from forking or reimplementation for A CENTURY? It's absurd, Oracle agrees with me (see link at bottom) The entire PC industry was launched because clean room re-implementation of the API of the BIOS broke IBM's stranglehold. Is the world better without WINE? Without game or CPU emulators? I am philosophically opposed to the idea of API copyrights especially. This is a corporate battle whose collateral damage is going to harm the entire industry. It's funny how everyone loves forking, until tribalism kicks in, and then people start granting mulligans on philosophy just because of tribal positions on whichever company they don't like. Remember this? http://www.gordoni.com/software-patents/statements/oracle.statement.html http://www.gordoni.com/software-patents/statements/oracle.st... "Oracle Corporation opposes the patentability of software" "A balance of fifty years protection for direct copying of code would continue to be provided by copyright law." Funny how perspective changes if you perform a buyout of a struggling company's assets to use it to shakedown the market.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  We would be using Atari, Amiga and Macs instead, and maybe some UNIX variants as well.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

You mean the platform where one of only very, very few conditions on it's use was to make sure that your implementation was compatible with others?

cromwellian 9y ago
The first smartphones had only 128mb of RAM and very slow performance. To remain compatible means supporting Swing, Java2D, CORBA, and a ton of other non-optional APIs included in the JDK. This was not really technically feasible in 2007. For decades, people had been producing Java forks which weren't compatible, Sun didn't do much about them, and even encouraged them. Their main idea was to charge for the TCK and the right to use the Java(tm). Remember Ghost and WabaVM for PalmOS? Remember Kaffe +Classpath? I'd argue that the idea of write-once-run-anywhere with a one-size-fits-all UI layer from mobile to server is a pretty bad idea. Apple seems to understand this, which is why iOS differs from NextSTEP.