14 ms·

But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting fu

But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). This gets into really critical concerns around APIs. If commercial product A sucks and I'm in a shop where we made our own drop in replacement that implement's A's APIs .. then we open source that drop-in replacement and put it on Github so anyone can use it, are we no violating their copyright just by implementing their API? This can set dangerous prescient when it comes to interoperability and reverse engineering.

pjmlp 9y ago
All telecommunication companies, Nokia, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent, .... have their network elements APIs copyrighted and pattented. Try to sell a device that comunicates with a e.g. BTS station without buying their licenses, to see how it ends.
- steve_gh 9y ago
  Mobile Telecoms standards are written by 3GPP, all BTSs and handsets (and for that matter, interfaces like 'A') are standard, and controlled by 3GPP. I believe they are open.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Not they belong to the companies and some of them are available under FRAND licensing. For the rest there is the 3GPP patent platform.
    - kpil 9y ago
      I'd say it's patent law, not copyright law, that make the licences possible to enforce. Most of the patents are the result of a lot of research and cleverness. Some of the patents are the equivalent of looking in another drawer if the first one did not contain what you are looking in. It's a bit arbitrary that an API isn't protected when some bullshit patents are. There is clearly much thought in some of the java APIs. I'd like to see shorter protection time for patents thought, especially in areas where there are very low investment costs, like software development.
- simias 9y ago
  In my experience the big hurdle is getting your device certified, not licensing issues. That's not really an IP issue however, it's just that uncertified devices might misbehave and create issues for other users.
sangnoir 9y ago
> They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). That's not quite right - Google adopted Apache Harmony[1] (an open source project, and if you want to attribute an organisation responsible for Harmony's success - such as it was - it would be IBM). Apache Harmony would have been 100% API compatible with Java had Sun (and later Oracle) not refused to provide the Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK). The Android runtimes (Dalvik, then ART) never had compatibility with Java bytecode, instead, Android build-tools use(d) Java bytecode as an intermediate pipeline step; the ultimate executable had 0% compatibility with the Java runtime.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  I don't think that's quite right, either (though I could be wrong). IIRC, Android first was done based on Sun/Oracle Java. Then (and maybe even after the lawsuit started?), Google shifted to Harmony.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    Are you perhaps referring to Android's very recent switch to GPL-licensed OpenJDK[1] from Harmony after the lawsuit? There was no GPL licensed (and certified) version of Java when the Android project kicked off - OpenJDK came into existance later. Also - Apache Harmony predated OpenJDK by a few years. 1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switches-to-openjdk-google-tells-oracle-it-is-protected-by-the-gpl/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switch...
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      Yes, that's what I meant.
baldfat 9y ago
> reverse engineering That is certainly an issue if you reverse engineer anything. Google went out of their way to NOT reverse engineer it. The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue.
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue. In Roman Law there is the principle "In dubio pro reo" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo), which means that if there are doubts whether the culprit is guilty or not, he/she may not be convicted.
  - yoklov 9y ago
    I feel like this probably is intended to apply in criminal cases and not civil. (And a copyright case like this would certainly be civil, and not criminal) In the US, it at least seems that something similar does, in so far as we require a unanimous vote by the jury to convict someone in a criminal trial, but a simple majority for a civil.
    - blattimwind 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st...
- treis 9y ago
  I don't get why it's a scary issue or even controversial why an API would be subject copyright. An API, in my mind, is similar to design drawings or blueprints. Independently figuring out how to implement those drawings doesn't change the fact that you copied the design.
  - alex_young 9y ago
    If you apply this view to all APIs, the computer revolution would never have happened. The PC was a clone of IBMs API. They fought this battle and lost and now we can argue about it on little handheld clones all day long.
curt15 9y ago
GNU/Linux is a partial (but incomplete, since no Linux distro is unix(tm) certified) a reimplementation of proprietary Unix, and with billion-dollar companies like Red Hat and IBM it's certainly a commercial endeavor at proprietary Unix's expense. It would seem to be an attractive target if a plaintiff like SCO could somehow move the case to the federal circuit (as none of the standard appeals courts have declared APIs copyrightable).
- jrs95 9y ago
  Seems like it’s really just an excercise in lawfare. The underlying legal “principle” is flexible.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  Afaik there are several certified GNU/Linux derivatives.
  - jlgaddis 9y ago
    I'm not seeing any [0]. Care to name one? [0]: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      There are a few based on Red Hat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Currently_Registered_UNIX_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Curr...
    - blattimwind 9y ago
      Both EulerOS and Inspur K-UX are Linux.
- hcknwscommenter 9y ago
  Reimplementation does not necessarily violate copyright. Copying does violate copyright (absent fair use). Like verbatim copying. Example, Google didn't have to use the “java.lang.Math.max(a,b)” header, but they did. They did copy because they wanted to leverage the existing Java developer base who would easily be able to develop for Android, without having to do the hard work of building their own ecosystem. Overall, Google copied the header structure for more than six-thousand methods.
danjoc 9y ago
>are we no violating their copyright just by implementing their API? OpenJDK is GPL. If you comply with GPL, no. This is the problem, Google copied and did not comply with the GPL. Their other option was to pay Oracle/Sun a licensing fee for a commercial license. This is exactly the business model many GPL users follow. Ruling otherwise makes this business model invalid, but it also creates a double standard. Consider a programming language where you program in types, like Idris. The case is more obvious here. The API is a program. The same applies to Java too, but that seems less obvious. The API is the program that produces compiler output.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Huh .. so why doesn't Google just release their Android Java runtime under the GPL? Seems like an easy win all the way around? I thought the OpenJDK people needed certain concessions to release their VM under the GPL?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Supposedly, they are switching to OpenJDK. But that doesn't erase their past infringement.
- icebraining 9y ago
  This is exactly the business model many GPL users follow. GPL users charge money for a license on the implementation, not on the API. Or do you know any charging a license for the API itself?
Waterluvian 9y ago
Is this akin to React vs. Preact? Same API, entirely different codebase. Allows me to drop in a replacement if Facebook does a stupid.
- beamatronic 9y ago
  It does sound similar
throw_away 9y ago
And yet Oracle ships an S3 compatibility API: https://docs.us-phoenix-1.oraclecloud.com/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.us-phoenix-1.oraclecloud.com/Content/Object/Tas...
- manigandham 9y ago
  Does anyone actually use the Oracle Cloud? From my attempts, it's only full of misery and broken tech.
  - Tloewald 9y ago
    So you're saying it's an Oracle product?
  - suyash 9y ago
    It's growing rapidly in Enterprise IT on all all three fronts IAAS, PAAS, SAAS.
    - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
      Do you know something nobody else does? Because the news seems to indicate that its growth has been slowing for a year now, which is not good news in a rapidly growing market. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/oracle-apos-cloud-growth-disappointing-130500540.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/oracle-apos-cloud-growth-disa...
  - nickbauman 9y ago
    Oracle increasingly resembles the old CA. A huge licensing portfolio company with some tech/r&d on the side where good software goes to die.
  - avip 9y ago
    It's called brand recognition.
- monocasa 9y ago
  Hell, Oracle got started by cloning the SQL API.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Considering the pain that has been caused by Google deciding they needed to reinvent Java, and do so in a way that isn't really compatible with the new releases, I would say I'm ok with this.
- icebraining 9y ago
  So you're OK with causing massive problems to anyone trying to provide alternatives to proprietary APIs just to stick it to Google?
  - sjwright 9y ago
    Judges don't decide what's fair or ethical, they determine how disputed action intercedes with law.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I'm not commenting on the judge's decision, I'm commenting on s73v3r_'s position.
pjmlp 9y ago
Most third party commercial Java vendors, selling JDKs for embedded development also have their own VMs and AOT compilers, with variations better suited for their hardware. Aicas, PTG, IBM, MicroEJ, .... Big difference with Google? They play by the rules.
- Coding_Cat 9y ago
  The rules as Oracle (and this ruling) sees them. Google and others disagree with Oracle about what the rules are or should be.
  - curt15 9y ago
    Interestingly, Microsoft briefed in support of Google this round in contrast with the copyrightability round.
- geodel 9y ago
  > They play by the rules. Or they will be sued out of existence. Google? probably not. IBM tried Harmony play along with Apache but backed away after legal threats.
MR4D 9y ago
Key line from the article: "In a closely watched 2014 decision in the dispute, the Federal Circuit said the APIs were entitled to copyright protection." Apparently, header files (which were subject to much discussion in the case) are still a legal minefield.
granitosaurus 9y ago
Can't believe so many people argue against this. Sometimes I forget what a corporate brainwash hackernews can be.

pjmlp 9y ago

All telecommunication companies, Nokia, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent, .... have their network elements APIs copyrighted and pattented. Try to sell a device that comunicates with a e.g. BTS station without buying their licenses, to see how it ends.

steve_gh 9y ago
Mobile Telecoms standards are written by 3GPP, all BTSs and handsets (and for that matter, interfaces like 'A') are standard, and controlled by 3GPP. I believe they are open.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Not they belong to the companies and some of them are available under FRAND licensing. For the rest there is the 3GPP patent platform.
  - kpil 9y ago
    I'd say it's patent law, not copyright law, that make the licences possible to enforce. Most of the patents are the result of a lot of research and cleverness. Some of the patents are the equivalent of looking in another drawer if the first one did not contain what you are looking in. It's a bit arbitrary that an API isn't protected when some bullshit patents are. There is clearly much thought in some of the java APIs. I'd like to see shorter protection time for patents thought, especially in areas where there are very low investment costs, like software development.
simias 9y ago
In my experience the big hurdle is getting your device certified, not licensing issues. That's not really an IP issue however, it's just that uncertified devices might misbehave and create issues for other users.

sangnoir 9y ago

> They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). That's not quite right - Google adopted Apache Harmony[1] (an open source project, and if you want to attribute an organisation responsible for Harmony's success - such as it was - it would be IBM). Apache Harmony would have been 100% API compatible with Java had Sun (and later Oracle) not refused to provide the Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK). The Android runtimes (Dalvik, then ART) never had compatibility with Java bytecode, instead, Android build-tools use(d) Java bytecode as an intermediate pipeline step; the ultimate executable had 0% compatibility with the Java runtime.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I don't think that's quite right, either (though I could be wrong). IIRC, Android first was done based on Sun/Oracle Java. Then (and maybe even after the lawsuit started?), Google shifted to Harmony.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  Are you perhaps referring to Android's very recent switch to GPL-licensed OpenJDK[1] from Harmony after the lawsuit? There was no GPL licensed (and certified) version of Java when the Android project kicked off - OpenJDK came into existance later. Also - Apache Harmony predated OpenJDK by a few years. 1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switches-to-openjdk-google-tells-oracle-it-is-protected-by-the-gpl/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switch...
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Yes, that's what I meant.

baldfat 9y ago

> reverse engineering That is certainly an issue if you reverse engineer anything. Google went out of their way to NOT reverse engineer it. The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue.

wolfgke 9y ago
> The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue. In Roman Law there is the principle "In dubio pro reo" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo), which means that if there are doubts whether the culprit is guilty or not, he/she may not be convicted.
- yoklov 9y ago
  I feel like this probably is intended to apply in criminal cases and not civil. (And a copyright case like this would certainly be civil, and not criminal) In the US, it at least seems that something similar does, in so far as we require a unanimous vote by the jury to convict someone in a criminal trial, but a simple majority for a civil.
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st...
treis 9y ago
I don't get why it's a scary issue or even controversial why an API would be subject copyright. An API, in my mind, is similar to design drawings or blueprints. Independently figuring out how to implement those drawings doesn't change the fact that you copied the design.
- alex_young 9y ago
  If you apply this view to all APIs, the computer revolution would never have happened. The PC was a clone of IBMs API. They fought this battle and lost and now we can argue about it on little handheld clones all day long.

curt15 9y ago

GNU/Linux is a partial (but incomplete, since no Linux distro is unix(tm) certified) a reimplementation of proprietary Unix, and with billion-dollar companies like Red Hat and IBM it's certainly a commercial endeavor at proprietary Unix's expense. It would seem to be an attractive target if a plaintiff like SCO could somehow move the case to the federal circuit (as none of the standard appeals courts have declared APIs copyrightable).

jrs95 9y ago
Seems like it’s really just an excercise in lawfare. The underlying legal “principle” is flexible.
blattimwind 9y ago
Afaik there are several certified GNU/Linux derivatives.
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  I'm not seeing any [0]. Care to name one? [0]: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    There are a few based on Red Hat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Currently_Registered_UNIX_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Curr...
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    Both EulerOS and Inspur K-UX are Linux.
hcknwscommenter 9y ago
Reimplementation does not necessarily violate copyright. Copying does violate copyright (absent fair use). Like verbatim copying. Example, Google didn't have to use the “java.lang.Math.max(a,b)” header, but they did. They did copy because they wanted to leverage the existing Java developer base who would easily be able to develop for Android, without having to do the hard work of building their own ecosystem. Overall, Google copied the header structure for more than six-thousand methods.

danjoc 9y ago

>are we no violating their copyright just by implementing their API? OpenJDK is GPL. If you comply with GPL, no. This is the problem, Google copied and did not comply with the GPL. Their other option was to pay Oracle/Sun a licensing fee for a commercial license. This is exactly the business model many GPL users follow. Ruling otherwise makes this business model invalid, but it also creates a double standard. Consider a programming language where you program in types, like Idris. The case is more obvious here. The API is a program. The same applies to Java too, but that seems less obvious. The API is the program that produces compiler output.

djsumdog 9y ago
Huh .. so why doesn't Google just release their Android Java runtime under the GPL? Seems like an easy win all the way around? I thought the OpenJDK people needed certain concessions to release their VM under the GPL?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 9y ago
  Supposedly, they are switching to OpenJDK. But that doesn't erase their past infringement.
icebraining 9y ago
This is exactly the business model many GPL users follow. GPL users charge money for a license on the implementation, not on the API. Or do you know any charging a license for the API itself?

Waterluvian 9y ago

Is this akin to React vs. Preact? Same API, entirely different codebase. Allows me to drop in a replacement if Facebook does a stupid.

beamatronic 9y ago
It does sound similar

throw_away 9y ago

And yet Oracle ships an S3 compatibility API: https://docs.us-phoenix-1.oraclecloud.com/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.us-phoenix-1.oraclecloud.com/Content/Object/Tas...

manigandham 9y ago
Does anyone actually use the Oracle Cloud? From my attempts, it's only full of misery and broken tech.
- Tloewald 9y ago
  So you're saying it's an Oracle product?
- suyash 9y ago
  It's growing rapidly in Enterprise IT on all all three fronts IAAS, PAAS, SAAS.
  - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
    Do you know something nobody else does? Because the news seems to indicate that its growth has been slowing for a year now, which is not good news in a rapidly growing market. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/oracle-apos-cloud-growth-disappointing-130500540.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/oracle-apos-cloud-growth-disa...
- nickbauman 9y ago
  Oracle increasingly resembles the old CA. A huge licensing portfolio company with some tech/r&d on the side where good software goes to die.
- avip 9y ago
  It's called brand recognition.
monocasa 9y ago
Hell, Oracle got started by cloning the SQL API.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

Considering the pain that has been caused by Google deciding they needed to reinvent Java, and do so in a way that isn't really compatible with the new releases, I would say I'm ok with this.

icebraining 9y ago
So you're OK with causing massive problems to anyone trying to provide alternatives to proprietary APIs just to stick it to Google?
- sjwright 9y ago
  Judges don't decide what's fair or ethical, they determine how disputed action intercedes with law.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I'm not commenting on the judge's decision, I'm commenting on s73v3r_'s position.

pjmlp 9y ago

Most third party commercial Java vendors, selling JDKs for embedded development also have their own VMs and AOT compilers, with variations better suited for their hardware. Aicas, PTG, IBM, MicroEJ, .... Big difference with Google? They play by the rules.

Coding_Cat 9y ago
The rules as Oracle (and this ruling) sees them. Google and others disagree with Oracle about what the rules are or should be.
- curt15 9y ago
  Interestingly, Microsoft briefed in support of Google this round in contrast with the copyrightability round.
geodel 9y ago
> They play by the rules. Or they will be sued out of existence. Google? probably not. IBM tried Harmony play along with Apache but backed away after legal threats.

MR4D 9y ago

Key line from the article: "In a closely watched 2014 decision in the dispute, the Federal Circuit said the APIs were entitled to copyright protection." Apparently, header files (which were subject to much discussion in the case) are still a legal minefield.

granitosaurus 9y ago

Can't believe so many people argue against this. Sometimes I forget what a corporate brainwash hackernews can be.