20 ms·

Oracle v. Google and the future of software development

372 points by nkurz 8y ago

scottlocklin 8y ago
Can't they both lose?
- kbutler 8y ago
  Eight and a half years of lawsuits? Yeah.
- microdrum 8y ago
  Exactly. Kent Walker's post oozes unearned righteousness. Does anyone believe Google will not be doing the exact same thing with its (moribund) technologies in, say, 5-10 years?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Does anyone believe Google will not be doing the exact same thing with its (moribund) technologies in, say, 5-10 years? I expect that they won't, if they win at the Supreme Court in this case, since there will be unambiguous controlling precedent that they can't.
  - zjaffee 8y ago
    This is a super important point. Just look at the direction backend software is moving. Think about how many Postgres compatible databases there are. For virtually every major open source project that exists today, there are companies reimplementing pieces of backend to sell performance upgrades to their customers. If Google was able to copyright Tensorflow's or Kubernetes API, it could make it so GCP would be the only ones able to offer an improved runtime for that system, and would absolutely be something that they would very quickly take advantage of.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > Does anyone believe Google will not be doing the exact same thing with its (moribund) technologies in, say, 5-10 years? I believe it, what about Google has shown otherwise? In many situations where they could have been offensively litigious they have not and I value them for that. Much more than many other tech companies that do use their legal department as an offensive weapon.
  - adtac 8y ago
    I expect (and hope) Google to behave better than Oracle. Oracle is infamous for this shit.
  - ojilles 8y ago
    All the examples listed to the parent comment here are talking about the Google of today (2019). But all businesses come to an end, and some of these later stages look highly litigious (see: Oracle). So in the year 20xx when Google ends up in that phase (owned mainly by activist investors, etc.) how will it act in that circumstance?
valleyjo 8y ago
So Oracle is saying that google violates copyright by implementing certain java interfaces for android? I’m not sure how java and android work together. Does google provide a java wrapper and then go under the hood and implement those APIs for the android device?
- lallysingh 8y ago
  They use a different bytecode and implemented the standard Java apis themselves.
- snarfy 8y ago
  They use the same signatures in the header files, e.g. int add(int, int); //adds two numbers Oracle is claiming copyright on a similar bit of text. If Oracle wins, any developer writing a method with that signature is violating Oracle's copyright. It's insanity.
  - treis 8y ago
    That's not true. If you independently come up with that then there is no copyright violation. Especially if it's a single method out of a large API.
    - blihp 8y ago
      But there's the rub: they are claiming the API is copyrightable, not just the code that implements it. Independently coming up with the code is irrelevant if the API being (re)implemented is copyrightable.
      - treis 8y ago
        Yes, I understand that. My point is that simply defining add(int, int) isn't infringement. You have to actually copy something for it to be infringement. Independently coming up with a small portion of an API is not copying and not infringement.
lawrenceyan 8y ago
It was slimy moves on Oracle's part through and through. It's like the only reason they chose to have acquired Sun Microsystems was so they could go and patent troll with it. Some seriously sad future that Oracle is heading towards if this is their definition of continuing innovation and growth.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  Oracle also needed a hardware business. Not a great one, but one that had customers.
  - lawrenceyan 8y ago
    I'd be cool with that story, if Oracle didn't go and sue Google like pretty much immediately after they finished acquiring Sun. They were 100% eyeing Android right from the start in my opinion.
    - lallysingh 8y ago
      The two motivations aren't mutually exclusive.
- dragandj 8y ago
  Well, Google had the opportunity to bid for Sun. The price was peanuts for Google. But they didn't pursue it, despite the risk. They brought this to temselves. And yes, Oracle behaves as a sleazy bag, but that was also common knowledge at the time...
  - travisoneill1 8y ago
    That's like saying that you could have gone to the gun store and bought the gun that I am pointing at your head before I did. It wasn't very expensive and you could easily afford it. You really brought this robbery on yourself.
    - 8y ago
crispyambulance 8y ago
This multi-year legal battle seem like insanity to me. What does Oracle, who practically prints money, expect to get out of this other than exercising a fleet of expensive lawyers? At best the case was always iffy and even if they "win" it's unclear what that really means for them given the inevitable subsequent legal maneuvers. Even more puzzling is how are they making the argument that Google has, in any way, harmed their business? It's just mind boggling. A slip-and-fall insurance scam makes more rational sense to me.
- Zanni 8y ago
  Not defending Oracle here, but the fact that the decision in Google's favor has been overturned twice suggests Oracle's not 100% crazy to pursue this. And the upside is mandatory licensing fees for every Android device.
  - YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
    > And the upside is mandatory licensing fees for every Android device. Sorry, how could that be an upside? It's plain, zero-sum rent-seeking. I.e. only an upside if you happen to collect the rent.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      I.e. an upside for Oracle.
      - Zanni 8y ago
        Exactly. Just pointing out the rationale for Oracle, not arguing the merits.
        YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
        Yeah, sorry, my bad.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
bithavoc 8y ago
I'll appreciate links to previous discussions about the subject but let's say I create the next big thing in the JVM world(the next Kotlin compiler or something like that), it targets the JVM and I happen to replace the implementation of `String.getBytes` at linking time while keeping the same method signature. How big do I have to be for Oracle come after me and ask for royalties of any Enterprise services I could be selling on top of my product?
- gcbw2 8y ago
  > How big do I have to be for Oracle come after me Depends on Oracle balance sheet that quarter. Or if they have sold/licensed the patents to other trolls.
armini 8y ago
While I don't endorse the sneaky way Oracle purchased the rights only to sue Google it does highlight what happens when you become complacent and lose focus on what's important. In an open market Google also had the change to buy those intellectual properties but at the time, they thought they are too smart for everyone with silly bids like the Pi bid https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/02/google-pi-auction-bid https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/02/google-pi... If you're serious about an industry, you work to reinvent it like apple has done with their operating system and hardware. If you take shortcuts then you need to face the music and in this instance Google has been out smarted by another industry competitor. If we support open competition and we believe in Darwin's theory of evolution then Google is the inferior because they took shortcuts & didn't make serious investments in owning the mobile landscape.
- dantheman 8y ago
  This lawsuit is nonsense. Do you think that APIs can be copyrighted? This will kill innovation and competition.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    I don't see why they shouldn't. They're definitely creative works that take skill to produce. I think using an API for the purposes of interoperability should be allowed under fair use. However! My controversial opinion is that Google's use of the Java API wasn't for interoperability. They didn't use the Java API so that Java programs could run on Android, they used it so that Java developers could transfer their skills to a new platform which is precisely the value of a cleanly designed API -- value that Oracle doesn't want to provide for free.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      > I don't see why they shouldn't. They're definitely creative works that take skill to produce. A creative work that takes skill isn't the definition of what should get copyright. For instance sewing patterns and recipies aren't granted copyright. > My controversial opinion is that Google's use of the Java API wasn't for interoperability. Following that logic, then any even slightly incompatible implementation wouldn't be legal. For instance WINE isn't a perfect recreation of Win32 by any means.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Appealed to the Supreme Court? That's good news. They've shown more sanity than many other courts on intellectual property issues. Maybe we can get the idea of copyrighting APIs finally shot down...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 8y ago
A reminder that what the law says, and what is a good idea, is not necessarily the same thing. The courts rule on the first point. Given that Oracle has prevailed in court on this before, one has to at least entertain the possibility that our law really allows for API to be copyrighted. But if so, that law desperately needs to be amended - the nature of APIs, at least public ones, is such that interoperability concerns override everything else, IMO. If companies can copyright an API and block competitors from implementing it, that would be very detrimental to the industry as a whole, for the sake of a few rent seekers profiting.
- curt15 8y ago
  >If companies can copyright an API and block competitors from implementing it, that would be very detrimental to the industry as a whole, for the sake of a few rent seekers profiting. The practice of writing drop-in replacements for software products is as old as the software industry, even those replacements that diminish the original product's commercial value. E.g gnu/linux vs proprietary unix.
  - cbhl 8y ago
    And imagine how different the world would be if Microsoft Word couldn't just read/write WordPerfect files by reverse-engineering them?
    - brianberns 8y ago
      Reverse engineering a file format is different from reimplementing an API.
      - ummonk 8y ago
        In what way?
        KingMachiavelli 8y ago
        The crux of re-implementing an API is that the name and structure of the replacement has to be the same otherwise it won't work as a drop in replacement. If I reverse engineer a file format I don't have to name any of my code the same as the original or structure it in the same way.
m0llusk 8y ago
Sorry if this dumb, but what does a fossil like Oracle have to do with the future of software development?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- _bxg1 8y ago
  Oracle bought Sun, the company that created Java. Android was designed in such a way that code written for the Java Virtual Machine could run on it without modification, though the implementation itself is totally original. Oracle is claiming that even the set of vocabulary used by Java programs to talk to the JVM - not just the JVM itself - is copyrighted. This vocabulary is otherwise known as an API. APIs live between every piece of software and every other piece of software it talks to. If the precedent was set that you could copyright an API, it would be a catastrophe for people's ability to build software on other software.
  - Forge36 8y ago
    If Oracle wins what would that mean for a project such as WINE? My understanding is that Microsoft could cite precedent and request WINE pay royalties as a standard install of windows.
    - _bxg1 8y ago
      Precisely, unless they decide to continue their recent good-guy streak.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
achille 8y ago
How many projects would be affected if the Supreme Court sides with Oracle and rules that APIs can't be reimplemented? Java is open source, but copyright is retained by Oracle. Would this affect say, Amazon's ability to rip off the MongoDB API? What about open source x86 emulators? (Intel IP) Hercules IBM emulator? Any of the Nintendo, SNES etc game emulators?
- throw_away2 8y ago
  Or, say, an S3 compatibility layer for your cloud storage system: https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3co... I'm not surprised by Oracle's hypocrisy. I'm surprised anyone with a soul and functioning sense of right and wrong still works there.
  - colejohnson66 8y ago
    If Oracle succeeds and Amazon proceeds to sue Oracle for that, that would be some sweet schadenfreude. Granted, I’d still be pissed at the decision, but to have Oracle’s tactics used back at them would feel really nice.
    - PetahNZ 8y ago
      Oracle would just sue them back for Aurora's MySQL compatibility. If not sue them first.
      - monocasa 8y ago
        If anyone owns the base copyright to SQL, it's IBM.
      - jhall1468 8y ago
        They'd lose for the very same reason that Android is within the confines of the law via the Android Runtime. Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Aurora's compatibility layer isn't violating the MySQL license either.
gok 8y ago
On the one hand I feel bad for Google. On the other hand, if this is what ultimately ends the twin blights of Java and Oracle on our industry... so worth it.
gpsx 8y ago
I don't think Sun should have protected the code for Java. But I think it should be possible to protect it. Most people here may hate the Jaa language but it took a ton of work and expertise to invent it. And it took something to make the ecosystem as large as it is today. This seems to contain as much intellectual property as something like a book. And when it come down to it, the intellectual property is in the method signatures anyway. There is no big trick to the code inside them. An intern could write that. As the lesser of two evils, I prefer Google to Oracle. And I hate patent trolls, especially this instance of it. But at the same time I don't want to reduce the legal value of software. If java is not protectable, is a program like Micrsoft Word or Autocad?
- monocasa 8y ago
  > but it took a ton of work and expertise to invent it Just because something took work, doesn't mean you should get a government backed monopoly on it.
  - Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
    In sweat-of-the-brow jurisdictions, though, it usually does.
    - wtallis 8y ago
      Are there any jurisdictions that don't have any distinctions between types of intellectual property (eg. copyright, trademark, patent)? Because in one sense, what makes Oracle's claims so objectionable is that they're trying to assert copyright powers and duration over relatively patent-like subject matter (if you make a fairly simple analogy between software interfaces and mechanical interfaces).
    - monocasa 8y ago
      Lol, no. The UK and Germany are closer to sweat of the brow jurisdictions, but they explicitly don't grant copyrightablity to APIs.
- sam0x17 8y ago
linkmotif 8y ago
I’m not a legal person or a supporter of Oracle but intuitively I’ve always felt their side of the story. The Java APIs are interfaces, but they’re the result of tons of work which Oracle bought, and it doesn’t make sense to me why those interfaces aren’t their intellectual property.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Except Oracle didn’t design them; Sun did. Oracle bought Sun after Java was created.
  - loeg 8y ago
    Doesn't really matter from an IP perspective, if you buy the idea that the work was significant in the first place. (I don't buy that; everybody comes up with basically the same sorts of standard API for their hobby programming language as every other programming language.) But if you accept the premise that the work is copyrightable, then it clearly transfers to Oracle via acquisition.
- monocasa 8y ago
  > The Java APIs are interfaces, but they’re the result of tons of work which Oracle bought, and it doesn’t make sense to me why those interfaces aren’t their intellectual property Just because something takes work doesn't mean you get a government monopoly on it. Sewing patterns and recipies aren't granted copyright for instance.
  - empthought 8y ago
    The trouble with this line of thinking is there's no viable way to make a legal distinction between interface and implementation. So either interfaces are copyrightable, or code isn't copyrightable.
    - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
      >So either interfaces are copyrightable, or code isn't copyrightable. Needs citation? I don't know where to start, but no, this case ruling in Google's favor would not make code uncopyrightable. The general idea is that there is only one way to copy a method's signature. There are many ways to implement the actual logic. It's hard to find a direct source since no one else is jumping to this extreme conclusion. So the test is, could you have done it another way? And since you can not have a function with the signature System.out without having a function with the signature System.out, it would be considered fair game.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mmaunder 8y ago
There is a view that WordPress plugins are open source because they inherit the WordPress GPL by using the WP plugin API. This case seems to apply in that the question is whether APIs are copyrightable. In other words, is one able to apply a license to an API that affects code and devs that use that API. So if Oracle loses, I wonder if that will have the unintended consequence of making WP plugins not inherit the GPL, which currently forces them to be open source. It could have similar effects on other projects.
- toyg 8y ago
  No, the issue being discussed is on the other side of the interface: if I reimplement a known API created by a developer, am I infringing the developer’s copyright? It doesn’t touch the question of “if I work with a certain software, do I have to follow the licensing terms of such software?”, which is what WP plugin developers must abide by.
- belorn 8y ago
  The wordpress argument is about the question if a court would see a plugin as an independent work, or as an modification of wordpress. Copyright law allows for independent works to interface with each other without permission from both authors, but do not allow modification of a work without permission. The distinction between a modification and a interface is an interesting legally gray area, but it is not relevant to the claim that Oracle is making. They say that the interface itself in Java was artistically made and thus made the header files copyright-able. If the courts agree with Oracle then it makes it impossible to write software that have compatible interface, since it is (almost) impossible to do so without creating copies the interface.
  - wtallis 8y ago
    Is there anything in the Federal Circuit's ruling that restricts the consequences of API copyright to independent implementations of APIs, and ensures that consumers/users of the same APIs are not treated as derivative works of the API?
    - 8y ago
cco 8y ago
I've followed this case a bit and read a few articles for each side, given our current legal framework I haven't seen a good argument against Oracle. Is there something obvious I'm missing?
- zmmmmm 8y ago
  Do you understand copyright? Copyright protects the specific expression of an idea, it doesn't protect immutable facts. An interface is an immutable fact. That's the essence of the argument.
  - empthought 8y ago
    It's a shit argument, because software interfaces are no more and no less "immutable facts" than software implementations. Oracle is correct here; fair use and copyright law need legislative intervention to fix the problem.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      It's a Table of Contents at best. There's nothing "original" about System.out or StringBuilder.append. The only reason this case has seen success is because the appeals court ruled that an API is akin to a taxonomy and that a taxonomy is copyrightable. The problem I have with that is that facts aren't copyrightable. You can append to a string. You can prepend to a string. You can reverse a string. And that's all API's are. There definitions of things you can do to a given structure. If the API was "Shazam.PowerBuilder.AwesomeThing()" I'd understand this position. But it wasn't. It was obvious lists of "facts" about given structures.
      - treis 8y ago
        >You can append to a string. You can prepend to a string. You can reverse a string. And that's all API's are. There definitions of things you can do to a given structure. If the API was "Shazam.PowerBuilder.AwesomeThing()" I'd understand this position. But it wasn't. It was obvious lists of "facts" about given structures. But in Java I can't add to a string. I can't prefix a string. Nor can I invert a string. So the things you mention aren't mere definitions or facts about things you can do to a string. They're methods specifically chosen by the language designer to be useful and those choices are a big part of what makes Java different from Ruby, for example.
temp-dude-87844 8y ago
This blog post is laundering history. The choice quote: "With smartphone apps now common, we sometimes forget how hard it once was for developers to build apps across a wide range of different platforms. Our 2008 release of the open-source Android platform changed the game." This could be equally said of Java itself, a good eight to ten years prior, which brought a serviceable userland onto desktops of all kinds, mobile phones of the day, and embedded devices too. They lifted that API to bootstrap the developer ecosystem for Android after their efforts to license Java from Sun failed, and did a different cleanroom implementation underneath. In the gold rush to develop Android apps, their frozen-in-time copy of the Java ecosystem rose to prominence and sought-after Java libraries were held back for years to lag behind official Java's versions. Differences between Android's facsimile of Java and real Java (from plenty of other vendors) caused confusion and divergence to the Java ecosystem, as Oracle's own efforts to leverage Java faltered too. Android's popularity de facto forked Java for years and did so without the permission of the rightsholder. If the copyrightability of APIs isn't the answer we want in the field, what instrument do we need to prevent the same from happening to other products too?
- ori_b 8y ago
  > what instrument do we need to prevent the same from happening to other products too? ...We don't need such an instrument, because the outcome you mentioned is desirable. If we had such an instrument, Linux would not have been possible, because it's compatible with the Unix APIs. OSX would not have been possible, for the same reasons.
  - temp-dude-87844 8y ago
    The difference between a blob storage system that implements an "S3-compatible" API, and AWS S3, is that no one is mistaking the other offering for S3. Dozens of libraries that implement the S3 API as a client, and offerings that implement it in the server aren't under pressure to diverge between fake S3 and real S3, because the API is feature-complete, and doesn't change in meaningful ways. There may be monetary harm to S3 from the competitor cloning their API and competing with them on price, but there is no reputational harm to S3. It would be revisionist to claim that there was no reputational harm done to official Java by Android's lookalike Java -- irrespective of any mismanagement by Oracle of the Java platform. How does one prevent that?
chimen 8y ago
There was a story on the fp 2 months ago by someone who went to an interview at Google to present her work (didn't work out) only to find out that a patent was later filed by Google covering much of the presented material. Reminds me of the McGreggor vs Khabib fight - "it's only business"
- evanjd 8y ago
  https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea
  - illumin8 8y ago
    Google, proving they are evil daily.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
fastbmk 8y ago
Oracle is right. Google & Android hinder and split Java with their outdated Java version support. If you write code in Java - now you have to decide whether you want it to be Android-compatible, then you need to limit your code to the outdated API available on Android. Or you can write sterling Java code which can use modern Java API. I hope Oracle wins and Android dies or switches to some other programming language, like Dart or whatever Google is capable of.
tzs 8y ago
I'm a bit confused about why Congress made appellate jurisdiction with CAFC work they way it does with patent cases. The usual justification for giving courts supplemental or pendant jurisdiction over subjects for which they normally lack subject matter jurisdiction when a case involves both something they do have subject matter jurisdiction over and something they do not is that there they will usually be arising out of the same facts and involve the same witnesses. If they were heard in separate courts, many witnesses would have to appear to both and that could be a hardship on them. For appellate cases there aren't witnesses. It's just the lawyers arguing from the record from the trial court. If the original case involved both patent infringement and something else, the patent aspects of the appeal are going to be handled by patent specialists, and the other aspects are likely to be handled by different lawyers. Thus, I don't see why the appeals should be bundled together and all sent to CAFC. Why not send the patent appeals to CAFC, and the appeals for other aspects to the ordinary appellate court they would have went to if there weren't also patent appeals? Furthermore, in the Google vs. Oracle case the second trial was just on the issue of copyright fair use, wasn't it? Apparently even though the trial court there was just dealing with copyright, because the original action why back at the beginning had a patent claim, it goes to CAFC even though there is now nothing involved that they normally handle. If we are going to have this screwy appeals path, how about allowing CAFC decisions on matters that are normally out of their jurisdiction, such as copyright, to be appealed to the regular Circuit Court of Appeals they would have normally gone to? CAFC is supposed to follow the regular Circuit Court of Appeals for precedent on such matters, so it seems crazy that the appeals path does not go through that court. As a general principle, if court X is supposed to follow court Y's precedent for something, court Y should be in the appeals path of court X.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I'm a bit confused about why Congress made appellate jurisdiction with CAFC work they way it does with patent cases. Economy of justice; otherwise, an appeal of a mixed case would often actually be two separate appeals to separate circuits, each of which would often make some legal decision and remand to the trial court, which would potentially have to wait for both appellate decisions before proceeding, especially if either required a new trial, since those new trials would have overlapping witnesses, etc.
dzonga 8y ago
not forgetting an infamous HN comment: "lawyers are profit centers at Oracle"
thejerz 8y ago
I've read all the Oracle v. Google decisions, with a strong command of software and IP, and I side 100% with Oracle. It is not a question of whether the world would be better if API's were open-sourced (in re: EFF amicus brief), or whether Mr. Ellison needs a new yacht (in re: comments on HN), or whether copyrights are a good thing (also re: HN). The question is whether the copyright of the Java API is enforceable. Here's the bottom line: Google didn't have to call it's resizable array java.util.ArrayList<E> -- it could have made android.data.ResizableArray<E>. But they didn't. Google copied the method signatures, and more importantly their organization into packages, to avoid the "drudgery" of defining their own original API. While a function that finds the minimum of two numbers -- int min(int a, int b) -- can arguably only be written one way and may not be enforcable, the issue isn't any one method's signature. The issue is that the Java API is an original, curated taxonomy of classes, methods, and interfaces, organized by authors. And taxonomies are protected under copyright. In the case of the Java API, the whole API taxonomy is greater than the sum of its method signature parts. Oracle owns that taxonomy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tux1968 8y ago
  Naive question, isn't that API available for anyone including Google to duplicate or use directly by the nature of the Java open source license?
  - cft 8y ago
    Java has no open source license
    - tux1968 8y ago
      Your answer surprised me and I went to do a bit of reading. Found this quote: > Since this article was first published, Sun (now part of Oracle) has relicensed most of its Java platform reference implementation under the GNU General Public License, and there is now a free development environment for Java. Thus, the Java language as such is no longer a trap. From: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html So it looks like at least older versions of Java were under the GPL. Apparently you can't use the name "Java" without passing a conformation testing suite, but you should be okay as long as you didn't call it Java, (say calling it Android). Or is this outdated/incorrect information?
ahyattdev 8y ago
Would this make the WINE project in violation of copyright for MS Windows?
- raymond_goo 8y ago
  Yes
narsins 8y ago
Wait a minute. Oracle acquired Sun. And Google acquired Android. Oracle trys to lock down API of Java. Google locked down their services and PlayStore by Google account. Oracle sued Google for Java API usage. Am I missing something? :)
sharmi 8y ago
Food for thought: Say Oracle wins. Now android comes with a price tag. Doesn't that mean, some open source alternatives like FirefoxOS or PostMarketOS will get more mindshare? A cursory look at all the open source alternatives, shows that they are all based on Linux. So interoperability could be achievable. It could be whole new world!
- zanny 8y ago
  Google would only be able to sell new versions of Android, mainly starting with 10. They can't revoke the Apache license on Android through version 9. On top of that, Android 7 already switched to OpenJDK. It no longer uses Harmony as a result in addition to their custom rewrites. So even if Oracle wins, Android hasn't been in violation of any API copyright they have for about two years now.
fxfan 8y ago
Lots of FUD here. Please see cwyers's answer on this page to see that a ruling in favor of Oracle will change little in terms of where software stands today. Almost all the use cases we see are fair use- except Google's where they deliberately harmed the Java ecosystem, the way Microsoft tried in 1998 (PS: Their JIT actually beat Sun's so in that particular case better technology lost because it was illegal)
- throwaway67215 8y ago
  (IANAL, this is not legal advice.) I wish you, and cwyers, would provide better reasoning as to why this is all FUD before decrying it as such. I'm not seeing how "doesn't harm the ecosystem" is a fair-use defense. What logic are you using to arrive at a fair use argument for Linux's copying of Unix APIs that doesn't apply to Google's case? I'll pose the same examples to you as I did in another thread: IIRC (it was a long time ago) Window's APIs closely resemble or are exactly like OS/2's PM APIs. Windows, one might argue, definitely harmed OS/2's "ecosystem", since the latter is virtually extinct in the mind of the public. Is that a violation of copyright? Especially since nobody thought APIs were copyrightable right up until Oracle decided to declare them as such, nobody has put anything regarding them in licenses. Nobody has thought that they even needed a license, much less obtained one, and a lot of effort has been built on top of products that are backwards compatible with things from many decades ago.
  - fxfan 8y ago
    You know the great thing about copyright? Nobody has to say anything. If it's creative work then you automatically have a copyright. You don't need a (c) 1988-2019 for that.
shmerl 8y ago
EU ruled that APIs are not copyrightable because they are too abstract. It's really bizarre, US courts didn't yet come to the same logical conclusion.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  The court did. But the appellate courts (who are known for being pro patent) said the ruling was wrong
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Well, let's hope Supreme Court will restore sanity in this case.
xedrac 8y ago
So if I write a small API that for all intents and purposes is identical to one that Oracle owns, but I write it in a different language, is that still infringing on their copyright? It seems that would have to be the case in order for a pro-Oracle ruling to make sense. If not, then everyone has a good reason to stop using Java.
BucketSort 8y ago
This is a really good case for the supreme court. As much as we may wish to side with Google because it benefits the typical developer, it is a nuanced case that requires some serious legal study. I can see the argument for these API's being in the public domain due to their widespread use, but at the same time, that sets a precedent for making success anti-competitive. I'm reminded of the cases where brands lose their trademark because their brand becomes the generic name. Can that be seen as a precedent in favor of Google's case? I.e. that once something becomes so widely used it becomes generic and free game for others to use freely?
profalseidol 8y ago
Google should've definitely paid Sun for licensing.
pjmlp 8y ago
Same old Google. Had they not tried to screw Sun and then left it to die instead of acquiring it, this would never had happened. "James Gosling Triangulation's Interview on Google vs. Sun" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=57m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be... Even with their switch to OpenJDK, they keep cherry picking standard Java APIs, forcing Java library developers to write two versions of their libraries or make do with minimal common denominator.
- dlubarov 8y ago
  > they keep cherry picking standard Java APIs, forcing Java library developers to write two versions of their libraries Can you give some examples of what Android is missing? I know it doesn't implement various packages like awt, swing, javafx, etc., and of course sun.misc.Unsafe. But I wouldn't consider any of that "core Java", and a lot of it doesn't exist in Java ME either. Are there any disparities in "core Java" libraries, like java.util?
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    They don't exist in Java ME, but a large majority does in Embedded Java, depending on which compact profiles are supported. They also existed in SavaJe OS. As for examples, just use the API diff tool and search for java.lang* modifications. https://developer.android.com/sdk/api_diff/<version>/changes https://developer.android.com/sdk/api_diff/<version>/changes Or play around with the API level on the reference docs. To be more concrete: - Locale.Builder, Java 7, introduced in Android 21 - java.lang.invoke package, Java 7, introduced in Android 26 - java.nio.file package, Java 7, introduced in Android 26 So one needs to do API hunting or just target the very latest versions to be on the safe side that an APK won't just blow up on user's device.
    - wtallis 8y ago
      > To be more concrete: > - Locale.Builder, Java 7, introduced in Android 21 > - java.lang.invoke package, Java 7, introduced in Android 26 > - java.nio.file package, Java 7, introduced in Android 26 Should the legal status of Android really depend in any way on whether or not it is done? Is there any practical way to define public policy that allows a work-in-progress reimplementation for competitive purposes but prohibits an incomplete reimplementation that you don't intend to flesh out to 100% compatibility?
Mikeb85 8y ago
Well, the end result will be Google replacing Android with Fuschia, Java with Go and Dart, and Java no longer being relevant in the mobile space.
sbr464 8y ago
If anyone hasn’t seen oyez[1], I highly recommend it. It’s a simple web app that plays back Supreme Court proceedings, showing the current speaker etc. It’s somewhat intoxicating to listen to history in the making. If you click on the oral argument link, you get the dialogue experience[2]. [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 [2] https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio/24778 https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio...
- hoerzu 8y ago
  This amazing!! Better than podcast
throwaway415415 8y ago
I know for a fact that Oracle has weird rules targetting doing business with specific companies because someone from these companies did something bad to them at some point. It usually involves suing them as well. The culture is really weird there as management is some sort of monarchy. I wouldn't be surprised if this one has similar roots.
edem 8y ago
There was an article on a blog which I can't find now where the author explained this situation in depth. Do any of you have a link to it? I think it would be useful here.
ece 8y ago
Oracle = Evil
me551ah 8y ago
Interestingly Microsoft also had it's own set of problems with Java when Sun was at the helm. Windows used to ship with Java and Visual studio had java as a first class citizen. Microsoft being microsoft, added extensions to Java which only worked on Windows which Sun didn't like. Microsoft ditched java, stopped shipping it with windows and created C#. Thanks to Microsoft , C# is a far better language than what Java is today and developing on windows is a breeze. Google on the other hand, has not focussed on developers much. I've been building on android for a few years now and the IDE is derived from IntelliJ ( Earlier you had to use eclipse which was even worse ). They could have easily gone the MS way and used another language or one of their own. Major language features are delayed, the code is incredibly verbose(kotlin tries to solve that to a small extent) and they are fighting a lawsuit which if they lose would be pretty expensive.
- okr 8y ago
  Google does not sell to developers, which is fine by me. But i personally use some libraries with google package names. Even the infamous Guava one.
  - dullgiulio 8y ago
    Why is Guava infamous?
  - tech_dreamer 8y ago
    Guava is a nice utility lib. Why do you consider it infamous?
    - okr 8y ago
      Guava is great, thats why its used often. And if you combine projects with each other (hadoop, spark, etc..), they bring in their own guava API level dependency. Normally that is not a problem, if you stick to non @Beta methods, the highest version is used. I did not find it on the spot, but i remember, there was once a written promise made by the Guava people to remain compatible to a certain API version. And then they broke that promise by changing public signatures or removing methods. Vividly i have the Stopwatch example in my head. Many projects went on to shade guava. And thats what it is infamous for.
sathishvj 8y ago
The primary loser in all of this is Java. Companies must be actively reconsidering their involvement with Java - I know a handful. Google, on their part, is pushing Kotlin to avoid the Java branding. Next is Flutter to entirely get off Java. There seems to be some evidence that they're also beginning to avoid the Android brand in places.
liveoneggs 8y ago
is Java a standard now? Did ECMA/ISO pick it up?
raymond_goo 8y ago
Here is a great analogy for Software APIs: They are the same as the ingredient lists in a "100 traditional recipes" book. Recipes have a name, they have ingredients and they have detailed instructions how to make the end result out of the ingredients. The detailed instructions are copyrightable but the recipe name and the list of ingredients are not!

372 points by nkurz 8y ago

scottlocklin 8y ago

Can't they both lose?

kbutler 8y ago
Eight and a half years of lawsuits? Yeah.
microdrum 8y ago
Exactly. Kent Walker's post oozes unearned righteousness. Does anyone believe Google will not be doing the exact same thing with its (moribund) technologies in, say, 5-10 years?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Does anyone believe Google will not be doing the exact same thing with its (moribund) technologies in, say, 5-10 years? I expect that they won't, if they win at the Supreme Court in this case, since there will be unambiguous controlling precedent that they can't.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  This is a super important point. Just look at the direction backend software is moving. Think about how many Postgres compatible databases there are. For virtually every major open source project that exists today, there are companies reimplementing pieces of backend to sell performance upgrades to their customers. If Google was able to copyright Tensorflow's or Kubernetes API, it could make it so GCP would be the only ones able to offer an improved runtime for that system, and would absolutely be something that they would very quickly take advantage of.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Does anyone believe Google will not be doing the exact same thing with its (moribund) technologies in, say, 5-10 years? I believe it, what about Google has shown otherwise? In many situations where they could have been offensively litigious they have not and I value them for that. Much more than many other tech companies that do use their legal department as an offensive weapon.
- adtac 8y ago
  I expect (and hope) Google to behave better than Oracle. Oracle is infamous for this shit.
- ojilles 8y ago
  All the examples listed to the parent comment here are talking about the Google of today (2019). But all businesses come to an end, and some of these later stages look highly litigious (see: Oracle). So in the year 20xx when Google ends up in that phase (owned mainly by activist investors, etc.) how will it act in that circumstance?

valleyjo 8y ago

So Oracle is saying that google violates copyright by implementing certain java interfaces for android? I’m not sure how java and android work together. Does google provide a java wrapper and then go under the hood and implement those APIs for the android device?

lallysingh 8y ago
They use a different bytecode and implemented the standard Java apis themselves.
snarfy 8y ago
They use the same signatures in the header files, e.g. int add(int, int); //adds two numbers Oracle is claiming copyright on a similar bit of text. If Oracle wins, any developer writing a method with that signature is violating Oracle's copyright. It's insanity.
- treis 8y ago
  That's not true. If you independently come up with that then there is no copyright violation. Especially if it's a single method out of a large API.
  - blihp 8y ago
    But there's the rub: they are claiming the API is copyrightable, not just the code that implements it. Independently coming up with the code is irrelevant if the API being (re)implemented is copyrightable.
    - treis 8y ago
      Yes, I understand that. My point is that simply defining add(int, int) isn't infringement. You have to actually copy something for it to be infringement. Independently coming up with a small portion of an API is not copying and not infringement.

lawrenceyan 8y ago

It was slimy moves on Oracle's part through and through. It's like the only reason they chose to have acquired Sun Microsystems was so they could go and patent troll with it. Some seriously sad future that Oracle is heading towards if this is their definition of continuing innovation and growth.

lallysingh 8y ago
Oracle also needed a hardware business. Not a great one, but one that had customers.
- lawrenceyan 8y ago
  I'd be cool with that story, if Oracle didn't go and sue Google like pretty much immediately after they finished acquiring Sun. They were 100% eyeing Android right from the start in my opinion.
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    The two motivations aren't mutually exclusive.
dragandj 8y ago
Well, Google had the opportunity to bid for Sun. The price was peanuts for Google. But they didn't pursue it, despite the risk. They brought this to temselves. And yes, Oracle behaves as a sleazy bag, but that was also common knowledge at the time...
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  That's like saying that you could have gone to the gun store and bought the gun that I am pointing at your head before I did. It wasn't very expensive and you could easily afford it. You really brought this robbery on yourself.
  - 8y ago

crispyambulance 8y ago

This multi-year legal battle seem like insanity to me. What does Oracle, who practically prints money, expect to get out of this other than exercising a fleet of expensive lawyers? At best the case was always iffy and even if they "win" it's unclear what that really means for them given the inevitable subsequent legal maneuvers. Even more puzzling is how are they making the argument that Google has, in any way, harmed their business? It's just mind boggling. A slip-and-fall insurance scam makes more rational sense to me.

Zanni 8y ago
Not defending Oracle here, but the fact that the decision in Google's favor has been overturned twice suggests Oracle's not 100% crazy to pursue this. And the upside is mandatory licensing fees for every Android device.
- YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
  > And the upside is mandatory licensing fees for every Android device. Sorry, how could that be an upside? It's plain, zero-sum rent-seeking. I.e. only an upside if you happen to collect the rent.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    I.e. an upside for Oracle.
    - Zanni 8y ago
      Exactly. Just pointing out the rationale for Oracle, not arguing the merits.
      - YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
        Yeah, sorry, my bad.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

bithavoc 8y ago

I'll appreciate links to previous discussions about the subject but let's say I create the next big thing in the JVM world(the next Kotlin compiler or something like that), it targets the JVM and I happen to replace the implementation of `String.getBytes` at linking time while keeping the same method signature. How big do I have to be for Oracle come after me and ask for royalties of any Enterprise services I could be selling on top of my product?

gcbw2 8y ago
> How big do I have to be for Oracle come after me Depends on Oracle balance sheet that quarter. Or if they have sold/licensed the patents to other trolls.

armini 8y ago

While I don't endorse the sneaky way Oracle purchased the rights only to sue Google it does highlight what happens when you become complacent and lose focus on what's important. In an open market Google also had the change to buy those intellectual properties but at the time, they thought they are too smart for everyone with silly bids like the Pi bid https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/02/google-pi-auction-bid https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/02/google-pi... If you're serious about an industry, you work to reinvent it like apple has done with their operating system and hardware. If you take shortcuts then you need to face the music and in this instance Google has been out smarted by another industry competitor. If we support open competition and we believe in Darwin's theory of evolution then Google is the inferior because they took shortcuts & didn't make serious investments in owning the mobile landscape.

dantheman 8y ago
This lawsuit is nonsense. Do you think that APIs can be copyrighted? This will kill innovation and competition.
- Spivak 8y ago
  I don't see why they shouldn't. They're definitely creative works that take skill to produce. I think using an API for the purposes of interoperability should be allowed under fair use. However! My controversial opinion is that Google's use of the Java API wasn't for interoperability. They didn't use the Java API so that Java programs could run on Android, they used it so that Java developers could transfer their skills to a new platform which is precisely the value of a cleanly designed API -- value that Oracle doesn't want to provide for free.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    > I don't see why they shouldn't. They're definitely creative works that take skill to produce. A creative work that takes skill isn't the definition of what should get copyright. For instance sewing patterns and recipies aren't granted copyright. > My controversial opinion is that Google's use of the Java API wasn't for interoperability. Following that logic, then any even slightly incompatible implementation wouldn't be legal. For instance WINE isn't a perfect recreation of Win32 by any means.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

Appealed to the Supreme Court? That's good news. They've shown more sanity than many other courts on intellectual property issues. Maybe we can get the idea of copyrighting APIs finally shot down...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

int_19h 8y ago

A reminder that what the law says, and what is a good idea, is not necessarily the same thing. The courts rule on the first point. Given that Oracle has prevailed in court on this before, one has to at least entertain the possibility that our law really allows for API to be copyrighted. But if so, that law desperately needs to be amended - the nature of APIs, at least public ones, is such that interoperability concerns override everything else, IMO. If companies can copyright an API and block competitors from implementing it, that would be very detrimental to the industry as a whole, for the sake of a few rent seekers profiting.

curt15 8y ago
>If companies can copyright an API and block competitors from implementing it, that would be very detrimental to the industry as a whole, for the sake of a few rent seekers profiting. The practice of writing drop-in replacements for software products is as old as the software industry, even those replacements that diminish the original product's commercial value. E.g gnu/linux vs proprietary unix.
- cbhl 8y ago
  And imagine how different the world would be if Microsoft Word couldn't just read/write WordPerfect files by reverse-engineering them?
  - brianberns 8y ago
    Reverse engineering a file format is different from reimplementing an API.
    - ummonk 8y ago
      In what way?
      - KingMachiavelli 8y ago
        The crux of re-implementing an API is that the name and structure of the replacement has to be the same otherwise it won't work as a drop in replacement. If I reverse engineer a file format I don't have to name any of my code the same as the original or structure it in the same way.

m0llusk 8y ago

Sorry if this dumb, but what does a fossil like Oracle have to do with the future of software development?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
_bxg1 8y ago
Oracle bought Sun, the company that created Java. Android was designed in such a way that code written for the Java Virtual Machine could run on it without modification, though the implementation itself is totally original. Oracle is claiming that even the set of vocabulary used by Java programs to talk to the JVM - not just the JVM itself - is copyrighted. This vocabulary is otherwise known as an API. APIs live between every piece of software and every other piece of software it talks to. If the precedent was set that you could copyright an API, it would be a catastrophe for people's ability to build software on other software.
- Forge36 8y ago
  If Oracle wins what would that mean for a project such as WINE? My understanding is that Microsoft could cite precedent and request WINE pay royalties as a standard install of windows.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    Precisely, unless they decide to continue their recent good-guy streak.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

achille 8y ago

How many projects would be affected if the Supreme Court sides with Oracle and rules that APIs can't be reimplemented? Java is open source, but copyright is retained by Oracle. Would this affect say, Amazon's ability to rip off the MongoDB API? What about open source x86 emulators? (Intel IP) Hercules IBM emulator? Any of the Nintendo, SNES etc game emulators?

throw_away2 8y ago
Or, say, an S3 compatibility layer for your cloud storage system: https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3co... I'm not surprised by Oracle's hypocrisy. I'm surprised anyone with a soul and functioning sense of right and wrong still works there.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  If Oracle succeeds and Amazon proceeds to sue Oracle for that, that would be some sweet schadenfreude. Granted, I’d still be pissed at the decision, but to have Oracle’s tactics used back at them would feel really nice.
  - PetahNZ 8y ago
    Oracle would just sue them back for Aurora's MySQL compatibility. If not sue them first.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      If anyone owns the base copyright to SQL, it's IBM.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      They'd lose for the very same reason that Android is within the confines of the law via the Android Runtime. Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Aurora's compatibility layer isn't violating the MySQL license either.

gok 8y ago

On the one hand I feel bad for Google. On the other hand, if this is what ultimately ends the twin blights of Java and Oracle on our industry... so worth it.

gpsx 8y ago

I don't think Sun should have protected the code for Java. But I think it should be possible to protect it. Most people here may hate the Jaa language but it took a ton of work and expertise to invent it. And it took something to make the ecosystem as large as it is today. This seems to contain as much intellectual property as something like a book. And when it come down to it, the intellectual property is in the method signatures anyway. There is no big trick to the code inside them. An intern could write that. As the lesser of two evils, I prefer Google to Oracle. And I hate patent trolls, especially this instance of it. But at the same time I don't want to reduce the legal value of software. If java is not protectable, is a program like Micrsoft Word or Autocad?

monocasa 8y ago
> but it took a ton of work and expertise to invent it Just because something took work, doesn't mean you should get a government backed monopoly on it.
- Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
  In sweat-of-the-brow jurisdictions, though, it usually does.
  - wtallis 8y ago
    Are there any jurisdictions that don't have any distinctions between types of intellectual property (eg. copyright, trademark, patent)? Because in one sense, what makes Oracle's claims so objectionable is that they're trying to assert copyright powers and duration over relatively patent-like subject matter (if you make a fairly simple analogy between software interfaces and mechanical interfaces).
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Lol, no. The UK and Germany are closer to sweat of the brow jurisdictions, but they explicitly don't grant copyrightablity to APIs.
sam0x17 8y ago

linkmotif 8y ago

I’m not a legal person or a supporter of Oracle but intuitively I’ve always felt their side of the story. The Java APIs are interfaces, but they’re the result of tons of work which Oracle bought, and it doesn’t make sense to me why those interfaces aren’t their intellectual property.

colejohnson66 8y ago
Except Oracle didn’t design them; Sun did. Oracle bought Sun after Java was created.
- loeg 8y ago
  Doesn't really matter from an IP perspective, if you buy the idea that the work was significant in the first place. (I don't buy that; everybody comes up with basically the same sorts of standard API for their hobby programming language as every other programming language.) But if you accept the premise that the work is copyrightable, then it clearly transfers to Oracle via acquisition.
monocasa 8y ago
> The Java APIs are interfaces, but they’re the result of tons of work which Oracle bought, and it doesn’t make sense to me why those interfaces aren’t their intellectual property Just because something takes work doesn't mean you get a government monopoly on it. Sewing patterns and recipies aren't granted copyright for instance.
- empthought 8y ago
  The trouble with this line of thinking is there's no viable way to make a legal distinction between interface and implementation. So either interfaces are copyrightable, or code isn't copyrightable.
  - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
    >So either interfaces are copyrightable, or code isn't copyrightable. Needs citation? I don't know where to start, but no, this case ruling in Google's favor would not make code uncopyrightable. The general idea is that there is only one way to copy a method's signature. There are many ways to implement the actual logic. It's hard to find a direct source since no one else is jumping to this extreme conclusion. So the test is, could you have done it another way? And since you can not have a function with the signature System.out without having a function with the signature System.out, it would be considered fair game.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mmaunder 8y ago

There is a view that WordPress plugins are open source because they inherit the WordPress GPL by using the WP plugin API. This case seems to apply in that the question is whether APIs are copyrightable. In other words, is one able to apply a license to an API that affects code and devs that use that API. So if Oracle loses, I wonder if that will have the unintended consequence of making WP plugins not inherit the GPL, which currently forces them to be open source. It could have similar effects on other projects.

toyg 8y ago
No, the issue being discussed is on the other side of the interface: if I reimplement a known API created by a developer, am I infringing the developer’s copyright? It doesn’t touch the question of “if I work with a certain software, do I have to follow the licensing terms of such software?”, which is what WP plugin developers must abide by.
belorn 8y ago
The wordpress argument is about the question if a court would see a plugin as an independent work, or as an modification of wordpress. Copyright law allows for independent works to interface with each other without permission from both authors, but do not allow modification of a work without permission. The distinction between a modification and a interface is an interesting legally gray area, but it is not relevant to the claim that Oracle is making. They say that the interface itself in Java was artistically made and thus made the header files copyright-able. If the courts agree with Oracle then it makes it impossible to write software that have compatible interface, since it is (almost) impossible to do so without creating copies the interface.
- wtallis 8y ago
  Is there anything in the Federal Circuit's ruling that restricts the consequences of API copyright to independent implementations of APIs, and ensures that consumers/users of the same APIs are not treated as derivative works of the API?
  - 8y ago

cco 8y ago

I've followed this case a bit and read a few articles for each side, given our current legal framework I haven't seen a good argument against Oracle. Is there something obvious I'm missing?

zmmmmm 8y ago
Do you understand copyright? Copyright protects the specific expression of an idea, it doesn't protect immutable facts. An interface is an immutable fact. That's the essence of the argument.
- empthought 8y ago
  It's a shit argument, because software interfaces are no more and no less "immutable facts" than software implementations. Oracle is correct here; fair use and copyright law need legislative intervention to fix the problem.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    It's a Table of Contents at best. There's nothing "original" about System.out or StringBuilder.append. The only reason this case has seen success is because the appeals court ruled that an API is akin to a taxonomy and that a taxonomy is copyrightable. The problem I have with that is that facts aren't copyrightable. You can append to a string. You can prepend to a string. You can reverse a string. And that's all API's are. There definitions of things you can do to a given structure. If the API was "Shazam.PowerBuilder.AwesomeThing()" I'd understand this position. But it wasn't. It was obvious lists of "facts" about given structures.
    - treis 8y ago
      >You can append to a string. You can prepend to a string. You can reverse a string. And that's all API's are. There definitions of things you can do to a given structure. If the API was "Shazam.PowerBuilder.AwesomeThing()" I'd understand this position. But it wasn't. It was obvious lists of "facts" about given structures. But in Java I can't add to a string. I can't prefix a string. Nor can I invert a string. So the things you mention aren't mere definitions or facts about things you can do to a string. They're methods specifically chosen by the language designer to be useful and those choices are a big part of what makes Java different from Ruby, for example.

temp-dude-87844 8y ago

This blog post is laundering history. The choice quote: "With smartphone apps now common, we sometimes forget how hard it once was for developers to build apps across a wide range of different platforms. Our 2008 release of the open-source Android platform changed the game." This could be equally said of Java itself, a good eight to ten years prior, which brought a serviceable userland onto desktops of all kinds, mobile phones of the day, and embedded devices too. They lifted that API to bootstrap the developer ecosystem for Android after their efforts to license Java from Sun failed, and did a different cleanroom implementation underneath. In the gold rush to develop Android apps, their frozen-in-time copy of the Java ecosystem rose to prominence and sought-after Java libraries were held back for years to lag behind official Java's versions. Differences between Android's facsimile of Java and real Java (from plenty of other vendors) caused confusion and divergence to the Java ecosystem, as Oracle's own efforts to leverage Java faltered too. Android's popularity de facto forked Java for years and did so without the permission of the rightsholder. If the copyrightability of APIs isn't the answer we want in the field, what instrument do we need to prevent the same from happening to other products too?

ori_b 8y ago
> what instrument do we need to prevent the same from happening to other products too? ...We don't need such an instrument, because the outcome you mentioned is desirable. If we had such an instrument, Linux would not have been possible, because it's compatible with the Unix APIs. OSX would not have been possible, for the same reasons.
- temp-dude-87844 8y ago
  The difference between a blob storage system that implements an "S3-compatible" API, and AWS S3, is that no one is mistaking the other offering for S3. Dozens of libraries that implement the S3 API as a client, and offerings that implement it in the server aren't under pressure to diverge between fake S3 and real S3, because the API is feature-complete, and doesn't change in meaningful ways. There may be monetary harm to S3 from the competitor cloning their API and competing with them on price, but there is no reputational harm to S3. It would be revisionist to claim that there was no reputational harm done to official Java by Android's lookalike Java -- irrespective of any mismanagement by Oracle of the Java platform. How does one prevent that?

chimen 8y ago

There was a story on the fp 2 months ago by someone who went to an interview at Google to present her work (didn't work out) only to find out that a patent was later filed by Google covering much of the presented material. Reminds me of the McGreggor vs Khabib fight - "it's only business"

evanjd 8y ago
https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea
- illumin8 8y ago
  Google, proving they are evil daily.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

fastbmk 8y ago

Oracle is right. Google & Android hinder and split Java with their outdated Java version support. If you write code in Java - now you have to decide whether you want it to be Android-compatible, then you need to limit your code to the outdated API available on Android. Or you can write sterling Java code which can use modern Java API. I hope Oracle wins and Android dies or switches to some other programming language, like Dart or whatever Google is capable of.

tzs 8y ago

I'm a bit confused about why Congress made appellate jurisdiction with CAFC work they way it does with patent cases. The usual justification for giving courts supplemental or pendant jurisdiction over subjects for which they normally lack subject matter jurisdiction when a case involves both something they do have subject matter jurisdiction over and something they do not is that there they will usually be arising out of the same facts and involve the same witnesses. If they were heard in separate courts, many witnesses would have to appear to both and that could be a hardship on them. For appellate cases there aren't witnesses. It's just the lawyers arguing from the record from the trial court. If the original case involved both patent infringement and something else, the patent aspects of the appeal are going to be handled by patent specialists, and the other aspects are likely to be handled by different lawyers. Thus, I don't see why the appeals should be bundled together and all sent to CAFC. Why not send the patent appeals to CAFC, and the appeals for other aspects to the ordinary appellate court they would have went to if there weren't also patent appeals? Furthermore, in the Google vs. Oracle case the second trial was just on the issue of copyright fair use, wasn't it? Apparently even though the trial court there was just dealing with copyright, because the original action why back at the beginning had a patent claim, it goes to CAFC even though there is now nothing involved that they normally handle. If we are going to have this screwy appeals path, how about allowing CAFC decisions on matters that are normally out of their jurisdiction, such as copyright, to be appealed to the regular Circuit Court of Appeals they would have normally gone to? CAFC is supposed to follow the regular Circuit Court of Appeals for precedent on such matters, so it seems crazy that the appeals path does not go through that court. As a general principle, if court X is supposed to follow court Y's precedent for something, court Y should be in the appeals path of court X.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I'm a bit confused about why Congress made appellate jurisdiction with CAFC work they way it does with patent cases. Economy of justice; otherwise, an appeal of a mixed case would often actually be two separate appeals to separate circuits, each of which would often make some legal decision and remand to the trial court, which would potentially have to wait for both appellate decisions before proceeding, especially if either required a new trial, since those new trials would have overlapping witnesses, etc.

dzonga 8y ago

not forgetting an infamous HN comment: "lawyers are profit centers at Oracle"

thejerz 8y ago

I've read all the Oracle v. Google decisions, with a strong command of software and IP, and I side 100% with Oracle. It is not a question of whether the world would be better if API's were open-sourced (in re: EFF amicus brief), or whether Mr. Ellison needs a new yacht (in re: comments on HN), or whether copyrights are a good thing (also re: HN). The question is whether the copyright of the Java API is enforceable. Here's the bottom line: Google didn't have to call it's resizable array java.util.ArrayList<E> -- it could have made android.data.ResizableArray<E>. But they didn't. Google copied the method signatures, and more importantly their organization into packages, to avoid the "drudgery" of defining their own original API. While a function that finds the minimum of two numbers -- int min(int a, int b) -- can arguably only be written one way and may not be enforcable, the issue isn't any one method's signature. The issue is that the Java API is an original, curated taxonomy of classes, methods, and interfaces, organized by authors. And taxonomies are protected under copyright. In the case of the Java API, the whole API taxonomy is greater than the sum of its method signature parts. Oracle owns that taxonomy.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tux1968 8y ago
Naive question, isn't that API available for anyone including Google to duplicate or use directly by the nature of the Java open source license?
- cft 8y ago
  Java has no open source license
  - tux1968 8y ago
    Your answer surprised me and I went to do a bit of reading. Found this quote: > Since this article was first published, Sun (now part of Oracle) has relicensed most of its Java platform reference implementation under the GNU General Public License, and there is now a free development environment for Java. Thus, the Java language as such is no longer a trap. From: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html So it looks like at least older versions of Java were under the GPL. Apparently you can't use the name "Java" without passing a conformation testing suite, but you should be okay as long as you didn't call it Java, (say calling it Android). Or is this outdated/incorrect information?

ahyattdev 8y ago

Would this make the WINE project in violation of copyright for MS Windows?

raymond_goo 8y ago
Yes

narsins 8y ago

Wait a minute. Oracle acquired Sun. And Google acquired Android. Oracle trys to lock down API of Java. Google locked down their services and PlayStore by Google account. Oracle sued Google for Java API usage. Am I missing something? :)

sharmi 8y ago

Food for thought: Say Oracle wins. Now android comes with a price tag. Doesn't that mean, some open source alternatives like FirefoxOS or PostMarketOS will get more mindshare? A cursory look at all the open source alternatives, shows that they are all based on Linux. So interoperability could be achievable. It could be whole new world!

zanny 8y ago
Google would only be able to sell new versions of Android, mainly starting with 10. They can't revoke the Apache license on Android through version 9. On top of that, Android 7 already switched to OpenJDK. It no longer uses Harmony as a result in addition to their custom rewrites. So even if Oracle wins, Android hasn't been in violation of any API copyright they have for about two years now.

fxfan 8y ago

Lots of FUD here. Please see cwyers's answer on this page to see that a ruling in favor of Oracle will change little in terms of where software stands today. Almost all the use cases we see are fair use- except Google's where they deliberately harmed the Java ecosystem, the way Microsoft tried in 1998 (PS: Their JIT actually beat Sun's so in that particular case better technology lost because it was illegal)

throwaway67215 8y ago
(IANAL, this is not legal advice.) I wish you, and cwyers, would provide better reasoning as to why this is all FUD before decrying it as such. I'm not seeing how "doesn't harm the ecosystem" is a fair-use defense. What logic are you using to arrive at a fair use argument for Linux's copying of Unix APIs that doesn't apply to Google's case? I'll pose the same examples to you as I did in another thread: IIRC (it was a long time ago) Window's APIs closely resemble or are exactly like OS/2's PM APIs. Windows, one might argue, definitely harmed OS/2's "ecosystem", since the latter is virtually extinct in the mind of the public. Is that a violation of copyright? Especially since nobody thought APIs were copyrightable right up until Oracle decided to declare them as such, nobody has put anything regarding them in licenses. Nobody has thought that they even needed a license, much less obtained one, and a lot of effort has been built on top of products that are backwards compatible with things from many decades ago.
- fxfan 8y ago
  You know the great thing about copyright? Nobody has to say anything. If it's creative work then you automatically have a copyright. You don't need a (c) 1988-2019 for that.

shmerl 8y ago

EU ruled that APIs are not copyrightable because they are too abstract. It's really bizarre, US courts didn't yet come to the same logical conclusion.

colejohnson66 8y ago
The court did. But the appellate courts (who are known for being pro patent) said the ruling was wrong
- shmerl 8y ago
  Well, let's hope Supreme Court will restore sanity in this case.

xedrac 8y ago

So if I write a small API that for all intents and purposes is identical to one that Oracle owns, but I write it in a different language, is that still infringing on their copyright? It seems that would have to be the case in order for a pro-Oracle ruling to make sense. If not, then everyone has a good reason to stop using Java.

BucketSort 8y ago

This is a really good case for the supreme court. As much as we may wish to side with Google because it benefits the typical developer, it is a nuanced case that requires some serious legal study. I can see the argument for these API's being in the public domain due to their widespread use, but at the same time, that sets a precedent for making success anti-competitive. I'm reminded of the cases where brands lose their trademark because their brand becomes the generic name. Can that be seen as a precedent in favor of Google's case? I.e. that once something becomes so widely used it becomes generic and free game for others to use freely?

profalseidol 8y ago

Google should've definitely paid Sun for licensing.

pjmlp 8y ago

Same old Google. Had they not tried to screw Sun and then left it to die instead of acquiring it, this would never had happened. "James Gosling Triangulation's Interview on Google vs. Sun" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=57m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be... Even with their switch to OpenJDK, they keep cherry picking standard Java APIs, forcing Java library developers to write two versions of their libraries or make do with minimal common denominator.

dlubarov 8y ago
> they keep cherry picking standard Java APIs, forcing Java library developers to write two versions of their libraries Can you give some examples of what Android is missing? I know it doesn't implement various packages like awt, swing, javafx, etc., and of course sun.misc.Unsafe. But I wouldn't consider any of that "core Java", and a lot of it doesn't exist in Java ME either. Are there any disparities in "core Java" libraries, like java.util?
- pjmlp 8y ago
  They don't exist in Java ME, but a large majority does in Embedded Java, depending on which compact profiles are supported. They also existed in SavaJe OS. As for examples, just use the API diff tool and search for java.lang* modifications. https://developer.android.com/sdk/api_diff/<version>/changes https://developer.android.com/sdk/api_diff/<version>/changes Or play around with the API level on the reference docs. To be more concrete: - Locale.Builder, Java 7, introduced in Android 21 - java.lang.invoke package, Java 7, introduced in Android 26 - java.nio.file package, Java 7, introduced in Android 26 So one needs to do API hunting or just target the very latest versions to be on the safe side that an APK won't just blow up on user's device.
  - wtallis 8y ago
    > To be more concrete: > - Locale.Builder, Java 7, introduced in Android 21 > - java.lang.invoke package, Java 7, introduced in Android 26 > - java.nio.file package, Java 7, introduced in Android 26 Should the legal status of Android really depend in any way on whether or not it is done? Is there any practical way to define public policy that allows a work-in-progress reimplementation for competitive purposes but prohibits an incomplete reimplementation that you don't intend to flesh out to 100% compatibility?

Mikeb85 8y ago

Well, the end result will be Google replacing Android with Fuschia, Java with Go and Dart, and Java no longer being relevant in the mobile space.

sbr464 8y ago

If anyone hasn’t seen oyez[1], I highly recommend it. It’s a simple web app that plays back Supreme Court proceedings, showing the current speaker etc. It’s somewhat intoxicating to listen to history in the making. If you click on the oral argument link, you get the dialogue experience[2]. [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 [2] https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio/24778 https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio...

hoerzu 8y ago
This amazing!! Better than podcast

throwaway415415 8y ago

I know for a fact that Oracle has weird rules targetting doing business with specific companies because someone from these companies did something bad to them at some point. It usually involves suing them as well. The culture is really weird there as management is some sort of monarchy. I wouldn't be surprised if this one has similar roots.

edem 8y ago

There was an article on a blog which I can't find now where the author explained this situation in depth. Do any of you have a link to it? I think it would be useful here.

ece 8y ago

Oracle = Evil

me551ah 8y ago

Interestingly Microsoft also had it's own set of problems with Java when Sun was at the helm. Windows used to ship with Java and Visual studio had java as a first class citizen. Microsoft being microsoft, added extensions to Java which only worked on Windows which Sun didn't like. Microsoft ditched java, stopped shipping it with windows and created C#. Thanks to Microsoft , C# is a far better language than what Java is today and developing on windows is a breeze. Google on the other hand, has not focussed on developers much. I've been building on android for a few years now and the IDE is derived from IntelliJ ( Earlier you had to use eclipse which was even worse ). They could have easily gone the MS way and used another language or one of their own. Major language features are delayed, the code is incredibly verbose(kotlin tries to solve that to a small extent) and they are fighting a lawsuit which if they lose would be pretty expensive.

okr 8y ago
Google does not sell to developers, which is fine by me. But i personally use some libraries with google package names. Even the infamous Guava one.
- dullgiulio 8y ago
  Why is Guava infamous?
- tech_dreamer 8y ago
  Guava is a nice utility lib. Why do you consider it infamous?
  - okr 8y ago
    Guava is great, thats why its used often. And if you combine projects with each other (hadoop, spark, etc..), they bring in their own guava API level dependency. Normally that is not a problem, if you stick to non @Beta methods, the highest version is used. I did not find it on the spot, but i remember, there was once a written promise made by the Guava people to remain compatible to a certain API version. And then they broke that promise by changing public signatures or removing methods. Vividly i have the Stopwatch example in my head. Many projects went on to shade guava. And thats what it is infamous for.

sathishvj 8y ago

The primary loser in all of this is Java. Companies must be actively reconsidering their involvement with Java - I know a handful. Google, on their part, is pushing Kotlin to avoid the Java branding. Next is Flutter to entirely get off Java. There seems to be some evidence that they're also beginning to avoid the Android brand in places.

liveoneggs 8y ago

is Java a standard now? Did ECMA/ISO pick it up?

raymond_goo 8y ago

Here is a great analogy for Software APIs: They are the same as the ingredient lists in a "100 traditional recipes" book. Recipes have a name, they have ingredients and they have detailed instructions how to make the end result out of the ingredients. The detailed instructions are copyrightable but the recipe name and the list of ingredients are not!