18 ms·

Google/Oracle’s $9B Copyright Case Could Be Headed for the Supreme Court

162 points by lawrenceyan 7y ago

panpanna 7y ago
I'm surprised the board at Oracle has let things go this far. Google could probably do a lot of damage to Oracle if they wanted.
- AsusFan 7y ago
  How so? Google has already been found guilty of Copyright Infringement (and then admitted it by invoking the "fair use" defense). They are in the hole already. This is just ironing out the details of how much Google is in the hole.
  - panpanna 7y ago
    Buddy, EVERYTHING in this trial is about fair use. Oracle using a technicality to ask 9B for something they used to give away for free can backfire.
    - javagram 7y ago
      Sun didn’t give it away for free. They charged manufacturers for licenses for J2ME - Until google came along and blew up their business with android.
  - gtfratteus 7y ago
    Lower courts have already ruled in Google's favor so I don't know what you mean by "in the hole."
exabrial 7y ago
Is there anything we can do as developers? Obviously I don't want to DDOS/DOX the supreme court, but can we write letters or do anything else to show _how massively important_ this is? EDIT: For those unable to read between the lines, HN is a large forum read by thousands of people of different backgrounds. Often when someone suggests something, small actions can add up to create a large problem. DDOSing/Doxing is never acceptable for any situation. I want to "do something" but without accidentally creating a problem.
- panpanna 7y ago
  A lot of people/companies contacted the judges last time but some were actually companies backing Oracle (eg microsoft?) What you can do as a developer is to ensure your company is not using any of oracles cash cows.
  - mlinksva 7y ago
    EFF has collected all of the briefs submitted throughout the dispute at https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google I don't recall any computer/software companies actually backing Oracle, other than Oracle itself.
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      The article says the BSA (Business Software Alliance) has filed a brief in Oracle's favor. This is their membership: https://www.bsa.org/membership https://www.bsa.org/membership (Obviously this is not a unanimous support list, as I believe Microsoft has filed in Google's favor.)
- Justin_K 7y ago
  Why would the thought of DDOSing the supreme court even cross your mind?
  - ummonk 7y ago
    If every developer wrote a letter to the SC, that might (depending on how they handle such letters) function as an inadvertent DDoS - similar to the HN hug of death.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  How does it impact us as developers either way? Both are titans that have contributed vital pieces of tech infrastructure as well as committed evil acts in their space. Oracle is arguably more evil here, but is it that big of a tragedy if Google loses? They have obscene amounts of cash; what difference does it make if a pile of cash goes from one evil pocket to another? Please if you downvote give an explanation. I honestly want to know what's at stake here for us.
pubkraal 7y ago
If anyone knows, how much would this affect non-US technology processes and legislature? What would an outcome of this mean for Asia and Europe?
- orra 7y ago
  What Google did is very clearly lawful under European Union law. The Software Directive explicitly permits reverse engineering for interoperability. Interoperability is not explicitly defined, but is widely understood to relate to interfaces. API, or Application Programming Interfaces, are of course interfaces. Hence you can reverse engineer APIs to create something interoperable, without infringing copyright. This topic has even gone to the CJEU, the top European court. World Programming implemented a language and library compatible with SAS. SAS sued. Ultimately, the court found in favour of World Programming. Of course, despite reimplementation of APIs clearly being legal in Europe, a ban in the US could still have a chilling effect, due to the international and cross border nature of software development.
  - orthoxerox 7y ago
    Except Google didn't provide interoperability, you can't run Java applications on Android. A lens company can study how a camera company mount works and sell compatible lenses. A camera company cannot study another camera company's mount to make an incompatible mount that uses similar circuitry and protocols to help lens companies support it faster.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > A camera company cannot study another camera company's mount to make an incompatible mount that uses similar circuitry and protocols to help lens companies support it faster. Sure it can, unless it's patented, but patents aren't claimed here.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      > Except Google didn't provide interoperability, you can't run Java applications on Android. You don't get to pick your own narrow definition of "interoperability" and claim that it's the only one that applies. Requiring 100% compatibility with compiled code quite obviously makes it trivial for the creator of the original work to completely subvert that right to reverse engineer. European courts would almost certainly choose to interpret that right in a way that allows it to have real power.
kodablah 7y ago
> "Before Android," Oracle’s lawyers write in their brief to the Supreme Court, "every company that wanted to use the Java platform took a commercial license...including smartphone manufacturers BlackBerry, Nokia and Danger." Either that's word twisting (e.g. "platform" means something different or the commercial license was implicit) or just false.
- stefan_ 7y ago
  What they licensed to BlackBerry, Nokia and Danger was of course the Java ME runtime.
alfalfasprout 7y ago
It's mindblowing how so many developers are quick to build on the Java ecosystem... an ecosystem backed by a company so hell-bent on stifling innovation.
- jryan49 7y ago
  People have been using Java for decades, when it wasn't even backed by Oracle. It's impractical to think people can just throw out millions of lines of Java code and hours of experience and knowledge just because of some "omg Oracle evil" argument.
- panpanna 7y ago
  Java was created by Sun. Oracle bought them mainly to sue Google. Kotlin from jetbrains is where developer mindshare is today ;)
  - pier25 7y ago
    But Kotlin does run on Oracle's JVM, no?
    - jryan49 7y ago
      Runs on OpenJDK as well...
      - icebraining 7y ago
        That's Oracle's too.
        lma21 7y ago
        Really? In what way does it differ from Oracle Java SE ?
        geodel 7y ago
        Since Java 11 only in commercial support model. Code bits are about same.
vxNsr 7y ago
This is the first time I've read anything in depth about this and I gotta say Oracle's case feels stronger and google is tilting at windmills. Oracle wrote something, google copied it. Oracle isn't arguing that you can't use java api's in general without a license. Its arguing that if you wanna create a new platform you can't copy copyrighted code. Doesn't matter how small it is, google has demonstrated that it was intentional and instrumental in helping android grow.
- kodablah 7y ago
  That's akin to saying that someone wrote about English grammar and you copied it in your comment by structuring your sentence in a certain way, using punctuation, etc.
  - vxNsr 7y ago
    It's more akin to someone who wrote a book and I copied the title and each chapter heading and then rewrote each chapter in my own words.
    - hu3 7y ago
      Perhaps not the best analogy since that could fall into Derivative Work category depending on the judge's interpretation of reimplementing APIs.
      - to11mtm 7y ago
        But that IS the analogy. And it fits. If Google would have even changed namespaces in question API I would not be having to take Oracle's side here.
    - arkitaip 7y ago
      Pretty much. I'm not saying that Oracle is the right party here but it was a sleazy move by Google. The fact that many of us benefited from Google's actions as users shouldn't prevent us from seeing this. Imagine if Google pulled the same stunt targeting your startup - i.e. verbatim copying your software's method signatures - would you be ok with it?
binthere 7y ago
I must admit I have not been following this case too close. But I get the general sense that most people in the CS community is in favor or Google and against Oracle. I'd like to understand it better. Can someone please explain in technical terms exactly what Google copied and what is Oracle complaining about? Is it just the Java API declarations? Most of the articles I find try to explain the issue in layman's terms which makes it harder for me to understand exactly what was copied.
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  Yes, this is the Java API declarations. If you open up the JavaDoc for Java and look at the list of classes and functions, stuff like java.util.HashMap and System.out.println. Google wrote all of those classes and methods from scratch. Oracle's claim is that this was not okay because copyright covers APIs. If true, this would have some fascinating consequences. For example, HTTP is an API. Presumably Tim Berners-Lee could sue the creators and users of all HTTP servers for violating his copyright. (note: not a lawyer, not even all that smart)
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  Google REIMPLEMENTED base classes to match what a normal Java app would expect. They complied with the public API as you'd find in javadocs. Oracle claims that is infringement because to make that work, their method signatures look identical to oracle's (and thus Oracle claims they were copied, in violation of copyright law). Google claims that API cannot be copyrightable by definition (an argument that most programmers agree with I feel) There was also a bit of similar code for obvious reasons. For example, how many ways are there to implement "bool rangeCheck(int idxRequested, int maxValidIdx, int minValidIdx)"?
  - krn 7y ago
    Is it similar to how Preact just implements React's API? So the problem here is, that Java's API is not under MIT? And what about all those competing companies that implement AWS S3's API?
    - 7y ago
wuliwong 7y ago
I'm trying to understand what was copied by Google. Did they copy the core class names and the different method and attribute names for these objects but rewrote everything else from scratch? I dont know java but but lets say it was ruby and then i made xruby and copied the same type of things. So, Random.rand (in xruby) still produced a similar random Float like in ruby. But the code that was called by Random.rand was entirely written by me from scratch? Is that the idea?
- orthoxerox 7y ago
  Imagine Ruby was closed source, but you were allowed to make open source implementations that ran Ruby programs. Then you implement a language called Crystal that uses Ruby syntax and its stdlib looks a lot like Ruby's, but it can't run Rails because it's designed for car navigators, not webapps. The Ruby Company comes after you and says that if you wanted to reuse their APIs you should've bought a license.
  - wuliwong 7y ago
    Interesting. I was thinking it was like google copy and pasted oracle's code, kept the function definitions and then re-wrote the innards. To me if code is truly treated as a literary work then it doesn't really matter how the end product behaves. It matters whether the text was copied. In the case of ruby vs crystal, I think the courts will rule on the side of crystal!
- __david__ 7y ago
  Yes, that is exactly it.
bitwize 7y ago
The Supreme Court should, and probably will, deny cert. Read the CAFC's opinion. Pretty cut and dry in favor of Oracle. APIs are not an abstract idea, but a concrete expression of an idea, thus protected by copyright. Google could have chosen its own expression, but decided to copy Oracle, which is against the law.
- nailer 7y ago
  So does that mean Word, which implemented WordPerfect APIs, is illegal? And Lunacy and Figma shouldn't be able to open Sketch files? Edit: if it's unclear, making APIs patentable would prevent all of the above. API compatibility is essential to compete with big players.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    Or Oracle when they implemented SQL?
- e1ven 7y ago
  Under that interpretation, I'm curious what you view as different than IBM vs Compaq about the original PC bios?
  - bitwize 7y ago
    The law is the law. Wishing it were different doesn't make it so. Which means that yes, Compaq and other PC clone makers may have broken the law by reimplementing the PC BIOS. The BIOS API does not depend on named functions but rather on specific values appearing in CPU registers, so I'm not sure how copyright applies to that. Maybe a "structure, sequence, and organization" argument à la Whelan v. Jaslow.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      > The BIOS API does not depend on named functions but rather on specific values appearing in CPU registers, so I'm not sure how copyright applies to that Do you have any reasoning for treating magic numbers different from English-like names for the purpose of determining copyright eligibility?
nradov 7y ago
I hope Google wins the legal case for the sake of maintaining an innovative software industry. But at the same time I still think that they acted like jerks by creating their own proprietary pseudo Java for Android rather than negotiating a formal agreement with Sun. Now the Java ecosystem is fragmented so many Java tools and libraries can't be used for Android development. That's bad for everyone.
mjw1007 7y ago
As far as I'm concerned, it's a huge failure that, over thirty years after computer programs were explicitly added to copyright law, it isn't clear to what extent APIs are copyrightable, and we have to watch lawyers argue over strained analogies to chapter titles in Harry Potter books. I think the process where the legislature writes a vague law and leaves it for the courts to decide what it actually means over a series of cases has fallen down badly here.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  Do you really want our senators, who usually old enough to remember hunting dinosaurs, writing these laws though? At least in court informed experts can be called. Congress only hears from experts if they so choose (surprise: they usually don't so choose)
  - mjw1007 7y ago
    I think there are other options. We could do a better job of getting test cases through the courts that clarify the law. Or we could invent new mechanisms for turning rulings from specific cases into general principles that people can rely on. Or we could allow somewhat more hypothetical cases in certain circumstances. As I understand it, in the US, after a few cases like the Phoenix BIOS one people came to believe that a clean-room reimplementation of an exisiting interface was generally permitted, and so people stopped suing and we didn't get a flow of cases exploring the limits of that principle. So now when Oracle comes along and points out that the Java API is a lot bigger, and arguably more creative, than the PC BIOS call interface, there isn't an existing case that settles the question. I can see why there's reluctance to allow people to get courts to decide hypothetical questions, but this case seems to be a decent example of when it would be helpful: if Google had had the option of getting a ruling ahead of time on whether its Java library clone was permitted, it might have saved an awful lot of time and money.
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      Courts don't decide hypothetical questions. They decide on the case before them, constrained by the precedents of previous cases. A judge can use examples and hypotheticals (called "obiter dictum"), but that doesn't create a binding precedent and later judges may ignore it, refute it or alternatively convert it into precedent by adopting the reasoning in a decision.
liara_k 7y ago
The aspect of this case that I don't understand is why, even if APIs are copyrightable, why Google would need a special license for the Android. If Java is available under the GPL, and Android is a derivative work but is also licensed under the GPL, then where's the problem? Conversely, by Oracle's logic, any application that uses the Java API would be a derivative work (the method signatures are perfect copies), and thus the app would need to be either GPL itself or pay for a commercial license for Java. This, too, seems incompatible with existing practice (e.g., Apache's Java applications are licensed under its own open-source license which is more permissive and thus can't be a derivative work under the GPL. What am I missing here?
- theandrewbailey 7y ago
  IANAL, but this is how I understand it: The GPL only means that you can read, run, change, and distribute code. It does not affect copyright. The individuals/companies working on a GPL program still retain their copyright for each bit of code contributed (authored). Because of that, copying code into a completely different program without consent of each author can be problematic. In addition, only the authors can sue to enforce the license. This is why the FSF requires contributors to assign copyright to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
  - barkingcat 7y ago
    This doesn't apply because the implementation that Google used wasn't GPLed at all.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    The GPL lets you copy code into a completely different program, it's just that you still have to follow the license and comply with all its requirements.
- comex 7y ago
  For your first point, Google was trying to avoid the GPL (for whatever reason), but since the lawsuit they’ve switched from Apache Harmony to OpenJDK in order to take advantage of it: 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... For your second point, using an API is different from consuming it; among other things, you don’t generally copy and paste the full method declarations into your own code.
sarcasmic 7y ago
This whole case is contrived, and both actors acted in bad faith, so the outcome will be troubling no matter what. If Oracle wins, others can claim that their API is copyrighted and weaponize copyright law to sue anyone they don't want to interoperate with them -- despite the whole point of APIs being that interoperability. If Google wins, it means anyone will be able to hijack the syntax, semantics, and interfaces of an ecosystem verbatim for commercial ends to promote an incompatible implementation, like they've done with Android. To protect against this, patents and NDAs will proliferate, and black-box organization and SaaS business models will solidify as the only (commericially) sensible way of distributing software.
- XCabbage 7y ago
  How did Google "hijacking" the Java API harm Oracle? If it didn't, why should anyone need to "protect" against such a thing happening in future? Maybe I'm missing something, but your comment seems to boil down to "If Oracle wins, people won't be able to copy APIs, which is awful! If Google wins, people will be able to copy APIs, which is awful!" Surely you have to be on one side or the other?
  - jryan49 7y ago
    It segmented the Java ecosystem into two parts. Android doesn't keep up-to-date with current Java version changes and creates friction. It seems similar to what Microsoft did to Java in the late 90's [0] (without the malicious intent). 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      > It segmented the Java ecosystem into two parts. I'd argue it vastly expanded the Java ecosystem, and the original part is unharmed. It's not necessarily getting unearned growth from the success of Android, but at the same time it's a huge stretch to say it was harmed.
    - monocasa 7y ago
pier25 7y ago
IANAL... but it seems to me copyrighting an API instead of the actual implementation would be like trying to copyright the idea of "chair" or "wheel" which is not possible AFAIK.
- sovande 7y ago
  A better metaphor is probably to look at an API as a design blueprint. For instance a blueprint of a house. Describing in detail all the components that goes into creating the house, plumbing, electricity, rooms etc. Clearly it is a lot of work to come up with such a design.
  - kstrauser 7y ago
    In that analogy, Google used the blueprint at the level of "living room goes here; closet is next to the bathroom". They then redesigned the plumbing and electricity from scratch.
  - count 7y ago
    It's a literary work. It's copying the table of contents, but writing your own chapter text. I fail to see how it's not copyrightable as such. It appears to be a collection of facts (the interface of the implementation). These are not copyrightable, unless it meets the following: "the work must be a collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; the work must contain the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and the work is created by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement of an original work of authorship." I can't see how "arrangement of those materials" and "virtue of the particular selection or arrangement" isn't obvious here? Oracle is pursuing the path where this case is literally about the contents of text files with words, which are supposedly well defined and understood under copyright law.
    - wuliwong 7y ago
      An API is more than a table of contents. When I write a method and give it a name and define what parameters it accepts, that is just as much part of the code as the inner workings of the method itself. I'm not a big fan of copyrighting in general but I am struggling to see understand how the code that defines an interface is separate from the rest of the code.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
One thing I hope everyone agrees with is that API design is an art. Often coming up with a good API is as significant a task as actually implementing it. An API that is intuitive yet flexible and extensible is tricky to design. If APIs are copyrightable, this actually might be good for open source projects such as Redis and MongoDb where cloud providers are just taking their API and creating implementations. This has been a huge issue for sustainability of these kinds of open source initiatives when a multi-billion dollar corporation can just come through, take the API and write their own implementation.
- orthoxerox 7y ago
  Did Redis and MongoDB copyright their APIs?
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Copyright is automatic, so if APIs are copyrightable, the answer is necessarily "yes".
  - wuliwong 7y ago
    I'm looking for a distinction between code and an API. I think that the code that defined the APIs is copyrightable. If someone copied that code, it seems relatively cut and dry. Now if someone produced a similar interface but with entirely their own code, then it seems fine?
- wvenable 7y ago
  Cooking is also art but recipes are not copyrightable. Not all creative expression is copyrightable just because it's creative expression. You could argue that basically everything is creative expression at some level.
optymizer 7y ago
I've discussed this topic once with a developer who sided with Oracle, which was a fun exercise for me, because I side with Google. The insight I got from that exercise was that, to him, APIs represent a product (e.g. I put a lot of effort into making this API, it's nice and clean, why should someone else be allowed to copy it?) and the implementation is typically straightforward grunt work, with intrinsically less value (e.g. we all know how to square a number). As a developer, it was easy for me to sympathize with that thinking, because who hasn't been amazed by how elegant some of the APIs are and how difficult it is to create a simple, yet powerful API? However, I believe that in the general case, it is the implementation that's the difficult part, which is why I'm against copyrighting APIs. Anyone can come up with an API for a Map, not everyone can create an efficient implementation of HashMap. Doesn't this sound vaguely familiar? I think it's the same argument as "ideas vs execution", it's just that, as a community, we've discussed the pitfalls of ideas, NDAs and execution an order of magnitude more than copyrighting APIs vs implementation, and so there's less of a divide. If you side with Oracle and you agree that execution > idea, then you should consider that implementation > API, and, similarly to how you can't copyright an idea, you shouldn't be able to copyright APIs. In the case of Oracle vs Google, both the API and the implementation are trivial, which is a special case of the more general "API vs implementation", and it is unfortunate that a precedent will be set for the general case, based on a special case. That sounds like a recipe for future trouble.
- wtallis 7y ago
  > I put a lot of effort into making this API, it's nice and clean, why should someone else be allowed to copy it? The problem is that copyright protection has requirements beyond the above sentiment, which can just as easily apply to something that needs to be patented rather than copyrighted. You can't get copyright protection just because you feel you deserve it.
- shmerl 7y ago
  Abstract ideas can be hard. It's not about triviality of the APIs that should exclude them from copyrightability, it's about their abstractness. That's how you should bust such arguments.
- 7y ago
TheFlyingFish 7y ago
I really only have two questions about this case: 1) The US legal code explicitly excludes "methods of operation" from being copyrightable. Does an API count as "methods of operation"? And if so, what ground does Oracle have left to stand on? 2) If this case goes Oracle's way, does this set the precedent that ANY re-implementations of an existing API are in violation of copyright? I don't know who now owns the original rights to Unix, but if they decide to come after Linux where does that leave us?
- beefhash 7y ago
  > 2) If this case goes Oracle's way, does this set the precedent that ANY re-implementations of an existing API are in violation of copyright? I don't know who now owns the original rights to Unix, but if they decide to come after Linux where does that leave us? We can't know until a decision is made, but this could likely start a precedent for any re-implementations. The curent copyright holders of UNIX are Micro Focus, who acquired it via buying Attachmade, who had bought Novell, who had bought UNIX System Laboratories from AT&T. Micro Focus mainly sells COBOL and is apparently hellbent on ignoring UNIX as much as possible (multiple people have tried to reach out to them about Ancient UNIX and possibly licensing some missing parts like PWB/UNIX and System III, but the best they've had is a salesperson being confused and trying to sell SUSE Linux). If they ever regain their institutional knowledge that they hold copyrights to UNIX and this decision happens, well, it's open season for Micro Focus v. Red Hat.
- kevin_b_er 7y ago
  CFAC has ended "methods of operation" where software is concerned. The phrase no longer applies.
paganel 7y ago
Oracle now has a market cap of about $170 billion, give or take a few billion, I'm pretty sure that if a company like Google put its mind to it it could purchase Oracle outright. It would also allow Google a very good entry on the enterprise market where it could push GCP down its clients' throats, imho there's no other way for them to catch up with AWS and Azure.
- burtonator 7y ago
  Buying oracle might kill them. Like a tiger eating a poisonous snake and getting bitten
grellas 7y ago
No tears will be shed, I am sure, if Google has to pay some billions to fatten the already fat pockets of Oracle but the decision by the Federal Circuit being appealed here made a hash out of key legal foundational items that facilitate the very idea of interoperability in the computing world and therefore cries out to be corrected. My comment at the time the decision was rendered: "This ruling will do what its [the Federal Circuit's] prior expansive reading of patent law did: it will set up a legal standard that invites lawyers and litigants to engage in endless second-guessing over copyright and fair use in areas of connectivity and inter-operability in the computing world and this in turn, as a standing invitation to litigate, cannot be good for future development." (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16691774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16691774 for fuller analysis) The Supreme Court quite often fails to take up discretionary appeals even if the issues loom large for a particular industry or even if an important case was wrongly decided. Sometimes it does so to resolve conflicting rulings among lower federal courts on an important issue; other times, because a case raises important issues of public policy. Don't know if this case will fit the criteria (it didn't on its first cycle of appeal - see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9801251#9802457; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9801251#9802457; also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#4051761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#4051761). I have long been an advocate for solid protection of IP rights but the Federal Circuit here has almost fetishized the idea of copyright protection to the point where it has, in the API and fair use areas, become a caricature of itself. Strong correction is needed on the legal merits of the case. Let us hope that the high level of interest in the tech community, as revealed by the number and quality of amicus briefs filed, will prompt the Supreme Court to intervene and bring soundness and clarity to an important area of law that affects the tech world in profound ways.
- monocasa 7y ago
  > Sometimes it does so to resolve conflicting rulings among lower federal courts on an important issue; other times, because a case raises important issues of public policy. Don't know if this case will fit the criteria It will. The CAFC's rulings are in open conflict with the normal court that would handle this, the ninth circuit.
- deleted 7y ago
javagram 7y ago
IMO copyright protection is way too strong and long lasting for this type of thing. The creation of something like Java should be protected by the patent system which at least has an expiration time of a couple decades rather than a century like copyright. Google taking Java and reimplementing it without paying a penny to Sun (who was requiring a license to other manufacturers at the time) does seem unfair. But I think the law should provide something like the “FRAND” standard for patents, or the mandatory mechanical license for copyright, to prevent a company from blocking interoperability. As far as who’s actually right on the law today.... the SCOTUS decisions will be interesting to read :-)
christkv 7y ago
If Oracle wins this lawsuits does that mean it’s the death kneel for AWS cloning open source wire protocols like MongoDB ?
shmerl 7y ago
Supreme Court should bust the bad decision about copyrightability of APIs.
kevin_b_er 7y ago
Should we start a blacklist of Oracle employees after this falls out that all interfaces are copyrightable? This ends the fundamental notion of interoperability completely across all of computer science. Anyone who continues to work for Oracle after some point can and should be considered an enemy of the the entire field.
- Spivak 7y ago
  Using an interface for the purposes of interoperability with existing software would and should be considered fair use. Using an interface for the purpose of creating a familiar environment for developers -- maybe not. Creating a Stripe compatibility layer so that existing plug-ins can talk to your service -- covered. Broadly copying Stripe's API and semantics to attract developers with a "Stripe like experience" maybe shouldn't.
smadurange 7y ago
Is this copyability issue for software APIs or more general? I feel like if I copied the full user interface of an iPhone (the way it looks and interacts with the user) and provided my own imementation I'm still liable?

162 points by lawrenceyan 7y ago

I'm surprised the board at Oracle has let things go this far. Google could probably do a lot of damage to Oracle if they wanted.

AsusFan 7y ago
How so? Google has already been found guilty of Copyright Infringement (and then admitted it by invoking the "fair use" defense). They are in the hole already. This is just ironing out the details of how much Google is in the hole.
- panpanna 7y ago
  Buddy, EVERYTHING in this trial is about fair use. Oracle using a technicality to ask 9B for something they used to give away for free can backfire.
  - javagram 7y ago
    Sun didn’t give it away for free. They charged manufacturers for licenses for J2ME - Until google came along and blew up their business with android.
- gtfratteus 7y ago
  Lower courts have already ruled in Google's favor so I don't know what you mean by "in the hole."

exabrial 7y ago

Is there anything we can do as developers? Obviously I don't want to DDOS/DOX the supreme court, but can we write letters or do anything else to show _how massively important_ this is? EDIT: For those unable to read between the lines, HN is a large forum read by thousands of people of different backgrounds. Often when someone suggests something, small actions can add up to create a large problem. DDOSing/Doxing is never acceptable for any situation. I want to "do something" but without accidentally creating a problem.

panpanna 7y ago
A lot of people/companies contacted the judges last time but some were actually companies backing Oracle (eg microsoft?) What you can do as a developer is to ensure your company is not using any of oracles cash cows.
- mlinksva 7y ago
  EFF has collected all of the briefs submitted throughout the dispute at https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google I don't recall any computer/software companies actually backing Oracle, other than Oracle itself.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    The article says the BSA (Business Software Alliance) has filed a brief in Oracle's favor. This is their membership: https://www.bsa.org/membership https://www.bsa.org/membership (Obviously this is not a unanimous support list, as I believe Microsoft has filed in Google's favor.)
Justin_K 7y ago
Why would the thought of DDOSing the supreme court even cross your mind?
- ummonk 7y ago
  If every developer wrote a letter to the SC, that might (depending on how they handle such letters) function as an inadvertent DDoS - similar to the HN hug of death.
JudgeWapner 7y ago
How does it impact us as developers either way? Both are titans that have contributed vital pieces of tech infrastructure as well as committed evil acts in their space. Oracle is arguably more evil here, but is it that big of a tragedy if Google loses? They have obscene amounts of cash; what difference does it make if a pile of cash goes from one evil pocket to another? Please if you downvote give an explanation. I honestly want to know what's at stake here for us.

pubkraal 7y ago

If anyone knows, how much would this affect non-US technology processes and legislature? What would an outcome of this mean for Asia and Europe?

orra 7y ago
What Google did is very clearly lawful under European Union law. The Software Directive explicitly permits reverse engineering for interoperability. Interoperability is not explicitly defined, but is widely understood to relate to interfaces. API, or Application Programming Interfaces, are of course interfaces. Hence you can reverse engineer APIs to create something interoperable, without infringing copyright. This topic has even gone to the CJEU, the top European court. World Programming implemented a language and library compatible with SAS. SAS sued. Ultimately, the court found in favour of World Programming. Of course, despite reimplementation of APIs clearly being legal in Europe, a ban in the US could still have a chilling effect, due to the international and cross border nature of software development.
- orthoxerox 7y ago
  Except Google didn't provide interoperability, you can't run Java applications on Android. A lens company can study how a camera company mount works and sell compatible lenses. A camera company cannot study another camera company's mount to make an incompatible mount that uses similar circuitry and protocols to help lens companies support it faster.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > A camera company cannot study another camera company's mount to make an incompatible mount that uses similar circuitry and protocols to help lens companies support it faster. Sure it can, unless it's patented, but patents aren't claimed here.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    > Except Google didn't provide interoperability, you can't run Java applications on Android. You don't get to pick your own narrow definition of "interoperability" and claim that it's the only one that applies. Requiring 100% compatibility with compiled code quite obviously makes it trivial for the creator of the original work to completely subvert that right to reverse engineer. European courts would almost certainly choose to interpret that right in a way that allows it to have real power.

kodablah 7y ago

> "Before Android," Oracle’s lawyers write in their brief to the Supreme Court, "every company that wanted to use the Java platform took a commercial license...including smartphone manufacturers BlackBerry, Nokia and Danger." Either that's word twisting (e.g. "platform" means something different or the commercial license was implicit) or just false.

stefan_ 7y ago
What they licensed to BlackBerry, Nokia and Danger was of course the Java ME runtime.

alfalfasprout 7y ago

It's mindblowing how so many developers are quick to build on the Java ecosystem... an ecosystem backed by a company so hell-bent on stifling innovation.

jryan49 7y ago
People have been using Java for decades, when it wasn't even backed by Oracle. It's impractical to think people can just throw out millions of lines of Java code and hours of experience and knowledge just because of some "omg Oracle evil" argument.
panpanna 7y ago
Java was created by Sun. Oracle bought them mainly to sue Google. Kotlin from jetbrains is where developer mindshare is today ;)
- pier25 7y ago
  But Kotlin does run on Oracle's JVM, no?
  - jryan49 7y ago
    Runs on OpenJDK as well...
    - icebraining 7y ago
      That's Oracle's too.
      - lma21 7y ago
        Really? In what way does it differ from Oracle Java SE ?
        geodel 7y ago
        Since Java 11 only in commercial support model. Code bits are about same.

vxNsr 7y ago

This is the first time I've read anything in depth about this and I gotta say Oracle's case feels stronger and google is tilting at windmills. Oracle wrote something, google copied it. Oracle isn't arguing that you can't use java api's in general without a license. Its arguing that if you wanna create a new platform you can't copy copyrighted code. Doesn't matter how small it is, google has demonstrated that it was intentional and instrumental in helping android grow.

kodablah 7y ago
That's akin to saying that someone wrote about English grammar and you copied it in your comment by structuring your sentence in a certain way, using punctuation, etc.
- vxNsr 7y ago
  It's more akin to someone who wrote a book and I copied the title and each chapter heading and then rewrote each chapter in my own words.
  - hu3 7y ago
    Perhaps not the best analogy since that could fall into Derivative Work category depending on the judge's interpretation of reimplementing APIs.
    - to11mtm 7y ago
      But that IS the analogy. And it fits. If Google would have even changed namespaces in question API I would not be having to take Oracle's side here.
  - arkitaip 7y ago
    Pretty much. I'm not saying that Oracle is the right party here but it was a sleazy move by Google. The fact that many of us benefited from Google's actions as users shouldn't prevent us from seeing this. Imagine if Google pulled the same stunt targeting your startup - i.e. verbatim copying your software's method signatures - would you be ok with it?

binthere 7y ago

I must admit I have not been following this case too close. But I get the general sense that most people in the CS community is in favor or Google and against Oracle. I'd like to understand it better. Can someone please explain in technical terms exactly what Google copied and what is Oracle complaining about? Is it just the Java API declarations? Most of the articles I find try to explain the issue in layman's terms which makes it harder for me to understand exactly what was copied.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago
Yes, this is the Java API declarations. If you open up the JavaDoc for Java and look at the list of classes and functions, stuff like java.util.HashMap and System.out.println. Google wrote all of those classes and methods from scratch. Oracle's claim is that this was not okay because copyright covers APIs. If true, this would have some fascinating consequences. For example, HTTP is an API. Presumably Tim Berners-Lee could sue the creators and users of all HTTP servers for violating his copyright. (note: not a lawyer, not even all that smart)
dmitrygr 7y ago
Google REIMPLEMENTED base classes to match what a normal Java app would expect. They complied with the public API as you'd find in javadocs. Oracle claims that is infringement because to make that work, their method signatures look identical to oracle's (and thus Oracle claims they were copied, in violation of copyright law). Google claims that API cannot be copyrightable by definition (an argument that most programmers agree with I feel) There was also a bit of similar code for obvious reasons. For example, how many ways are there to implement "bool rangeCheck(int idxRequested, int maxValidIdx, int minValidIdx)"?
- krn 7y ago
  Is it similar to how Preact just implements React's API? So the problem here is, that Java's API is not under MIT? And what about all those competing companies that implement AWS S3's API?
  - 7y ago

wuliwong 7y ago

I'm trying to understand what was copied by Google. Did they copy the core class names and the different method and attribute names for these objects but rewrote everything else from scratch? I dont know java but but lets say it was ruby and then i made xruby and copied the same type of things. So, Random.rand (in xruby) still produced a similar random Float like in ruby. But the code that was called by Random.rand was entirely written by me from scratch? Is that the idea?

orthoxerox 7y ago
Imagine Ruby was closed source, but you were allowed to make open source implementations that ran Ruby programs. Then you implement a language called Crystal that uses Ruby syntax and its stdlib looks a lot like Ruby's, but it can't run Rails because it's designed for car navigators, not webapps. The Ruby Company comes after you and says that if you wanted to reuse their APIs you should've bought a license.
- wuliwong 7y ago
  Interesting. I was thinking it was like google copy and pasted oracle's code, kept the function definitions and then re-wrote the innards. To me if code is truly treated as a literary work then it doesn't really matter how the end product behaves. It matters whether the text was copied. In the case of ruby vs crystal, I think the courts will rule on the side of crystal!
__david__ 7y ago
Yes, that is exactly it.

bitwize 7y ago

The Supreme Court should, and probably will, deny cert. Read the CAFC's opinion. Pretty cut and dry in favor of Oracle. APIs are not an abstract idea, but a concrete expression of an idea, thus protected by copyright. Google could have chosen its own expression, but decided to copy Oracle, which is against the law.

nailer 7y ago
So does that mean Word, which implemented WordPerfect APIs, is illegal? And Lunacy and Figma shouldn't be able to open Sketch files? Edit: if it's unclear, making APIs patentable would prevent all of the above. API compatibility is essential to compete with big players.
- monocasa 7y ago
  Or Oracle when they implemented SQL?
e1ven 7y ago
Under that interpretation, I'm curious what you view as different than IBM vs Compaq about the original PC bios?
- bitwize 7y ago
  The law is the law. Wishing it were different doesn't make it so. Which means that yes, Compaq and other PC clone makers may have broken the law by reimplementing the PC BIOS. The BIOS API does not depend on named functions but rather on specific values appearing in CPU registers, so I'm not sure how copyright applies to that. Maybe a "structure, sequence, and organization" argument à la Whelan v. Jaslow.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    > The BIOS API does not depend on named functions but rather on specific values appearing in CPU registers, so I'm not sure how copyright applies to that Do you have any reasoning for treating magic numbers different from English-like names for the purpose of determining copyright eligibility?

nradov 7y ago

I hope Google wins the legal case for the sake of maintaining an innovative software industry. But at the same time I still think that they acted like jerks by creating their own proprietary pseudo Java for Android rather than negotiating a formal agreement with Sun. Now the Java ecosystem is fragmented so many Java tools and libraries can't be used for Android development. That's bad for everyone.

mjw1007 7y ago

As far as I'm concerned, it's a huge failure that, over thirty years after computer programs were explicitly added to copyright law, it isn't clear to what extent APIs are copyrightable, and we have to watch lawyers argue over strained analogies to chapter titles in Harry Potter books. I think the process where the legislature writes a vague law and leaves it for the courts to decide what it actually means over a series of cases has fallen down badly here.

dmitrygr 7y ago
Do you really want our senators, who usually old enough to remember hunting dinosaurs, writing these laws though? At least in court informed experts can be called. Congress only hears from experts if they so choose (surprise: they usually don't so choose)
- mjw1007 7y ago
  I think there are other options. We could do a better job of getting test cases through the courts that clarify the law. Or we could invent new mechanisms for turning rulings from specific cases into general principles that people can rely on. Or we could allow somewhat more hypothetical cases in certain circumstances. As I understand it, in the US, after a few cases like the Phoenix BIOS one people came to believe that a clean-room reimplementation of an exisiting interface was generally permitted, and so people stopped suing and we didn't get a flow of cases exploring the limits of that principle. So now when Oracle comes along and points out that the Java API is a lot bigger, and arguably more creative, than the PC BIOS call interface, there isn't an existing case that settles the question. I can see why there's reluctance to allow people to get courts to decide hypothetical questions, but this case seems to be a decent example of when it would be helpful: if Google had had the option of getting a ruling ahead of time on whether its Java library clone was permitted, it might have saved an awful lot of time and money.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    Courts don't decide hypothetical questions. They decide on the case before them, constrained by the precedents of previous cases. A judge can use examples and hypotheticals (called "obiter dictum"), but that doesn't create a binding precedent and later judges may ignore it, refute it or alternatively convert it into precedent by adopting the reasoning in a decision.

liara_k 7y ago

The aspect of this case that I don't understand is why, even if APIs are copyrightable, why Google would need a special license for the Android. If Java is available under the GPL, and Android is a derivative work but is also licensed under the GPL, then where's the problem? Conversely, by Oracle's logic, any application that uses the Java API would be a derivative work (the method signatures are perfect copies), and thus the app would need to be either GPL itself or pay for a commercial license for Java. This, too, seems incompatible with existing practice (e.g., Apache's Java applications are licensed under its own open-source license which is more permissive and thus can't be a derivative work under the GPL. What am I missing here?

theandrewbailey 7y ago
IANAL, but this is how I understand it: The GPL only means that you can read, run, change, and distribute code. It does not affect copyright. The individuals/companies working on a GPL program still retain their copyright for each bit of code contributed (authored). Because of that, copying code into a completely different program without consent of each author can be problematic. In addition, only the authors can sue to enforce the license. This is why the FSF requires contributors to assign copyright to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
- barkingcat 7y ago
  This doesn't apply because the implementation that Google used wasn't GPLed at all.
- icebraining 7y ago
  The GPL lets you copy code into a completely different program, it's just that you still have to follow the license and comply with all its requirements.
comex 7y ago
For your first point, Google was trying to avoid the GPL (for whatever reason), but since the lawsuit they’ve switched from Apache Harmony to OpenJDK in order to take advantage of it: 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... For your second point, using an API is different from consuming it; among other things, you don’t generally copy and paste the full method declarations into your own code.

sarcasmic 7y ago

This whole case is contrived, and both actors acted in bad faith, so the outcome will be troubling no matter what. If Oracle wins, others can claim that their API is copyrighted and weaponize copyright law to sue anyone they don't want to interoperate with them -- despite the whole point of APIs being that interoperability. If Google wins, it means anyone will be able to hijack the syntax, semantics, and interfaces of an ecosystem verbatim for commercial ends to promote an incompatible implementation, like they've done with Android. To protect against this, patents and NDAs will proliferate, and black-box organization and SaaS business models will solidify as the only (commericially) sensible way of distributing software.

XCabbage 7y ago
How did Google "hijacking" the Java API harm Oracle? If it didn't, why should anyone need to "protect" against such a thing happening in future? Maybe I'm missing something, but your comment seems to boil down to "If Oracle wins, people won't be able to copy APIs, which is awful! If Google wins, people will be able to copy APIs, which is awful!" Surely you have to be on one side or the other?
- jryan49 7y ago
  It segmented the Java ecosystem into two parts. Android doesn't keep up-to-date with current Java version changes and creates friction. It seems similar to what Microsoft did to Java in the late 90's [0] (without the malicious intent). 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    > It segmented the Java ecosystem into two parts. I'd argue it vastly expanded the Java ecosystem, and the original part is unharmed. It's not necessarily getting unearned growth from the success of Android, but at the same time it's a huge stretch to say it was harmed.
  - monocasa 7y ago

pier25 7y ago

IANAL... but it seems to me copyrighting an API instead of the actual implementation would be like trying to copyright the idea of "chair" or "wheel" which is not possible AFAIK.

sovande 7y ago
A better metaphor is probably to look at an API as a design blueprint. For instance a blueprint of a house. Describing in detail all the components that goes into creating the house, plumbing, electricity, rooms etc. Clearly it is a lot of work to come up with such a design.
- kstrauser 7y ago
  In that analogy, Google used the blueprint at the level of "living room goes here; closet is next to the bathroom". They then redesigned the plumbing and electricity from scratch.
- count 7y ago
  It's a literary work. It's copying the table of contents, but writing your own chapter text. I fail to see how it's not copyrightable as such. It appears to be a collection of facts (the interface of the implementation). These are not copyrightable, unless it meets the following: "the work must be a collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; the work must contain the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and the work is created by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement of an original work of authorship." I can't see how "arrangement of those materials" and "virtue of the particular selection or arrangement" isn't obvious here? Oracle is pursuing the path where this case is literally about the contents of text files with words, which are supposedly well defined and understood under copyright law.
  - wuliwong 7y ago
    An API is more than a table of contents. When I write a method and give it a name and define what parameters it accepts, that is just as much part of the code as the inner workings of the method itself. I'm not a big fan of copyrighting in general but I am struggling to see understand how the code that defines an interface is separate from the rest of the code.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

One thing I hope everyone agrees with is that API design is an art. Often coming up with a good API is as significant a task as actually implementing it. An API that is intuitive yet flexible and extensible is tricky to design. If APIs are copyrightable, this actually might be good for open source projects such as Redis and MongoDb where cloud providers are just taking their API and creating implementations. This has been a huge issue for sustainability of these kinds of open source initiatives when a multi-billion dollar corporation can just come through, take the API and write their own implementation.

orthoxerox 7y ago
Did Redis and MongoDB copyright their APIs?
- icebraining 7y ago
  Copyright is automatic, so if APIs are copyrightable, the answer is necessarily "yes".
- wuliwong 7y ago
  I'm looking for a distinction between code and an API. I think that the code that defined the APIs is copyrightable. If someone copied that code, it seems relatively cut and dry. Now if someone produced a similar interface but with entirely their own code, then it seems fine?
wvenable 7y ago
Cooking is also art but recipes are not copyrightable. Not all creative expression is copyrightable just because it's creative expression. You could argue that basically everything is creative expression at some level.

optymizer 7y ago

I've discussed this topic once with a developer who sided with Oracle, which was a fun exercise for me, because I side with Google. The insight I got from that exercise was that, to him, APIs represent a product (e.g. I put a lot of effort into making this API, it's nice and clean, why should someone else be allowed to copy it?) and the implementation is typically straightforward grunt work, with intrinsically less value (e.g. we all know how to square a number). As a developer, it was easy for me to sympathize with that thinking, because who hasn't been amazed by how elegant some of the APIs are and how difficult it is to create a simple, yet powerful API? However, I believe that in the general case, it is the implementation that's the difficult part, which is why I'm against copyrighting APIs. Anyone can come up with an API for a Map, not everyone can create an efficient implementation of HashMap. Doesn't this sound vaguely familiar? I think it's the same argument as "ideas vs execution", it's just that, as a community, we've discussed the pitfalls of ideas, NDAs and execution an order of magnitude more than copyrighting APIs vs implementation, and so there's less of a divide. If you side with Oracle and you agree that execution > idea, then you should consider that implementation > API, and, similarly to how you can't copyright an idea, you shouldn't be able to copyright APIs. In the case of Oracle vs Google, both the API and the implementation are trivial, which is a special case of the more general "API vs implementation", and it is unfortunate that a precedent will be set for the general case, based on a special case. That sounds like a recipe for future trouble.

wtallis 7y ago
> I put a lot of effort into making this API, it's nice and clean, why should someone else be allowed to copy it? The problem is that copyright protection has requirements beyond the above sentiment, which can just as easily apply to something that needs to be patented rather than copyrighted. You can't get copyright protection just because you feel you deserve it.
shmerl 7y ago
Abstract ideas can be hard. It's not about triviality of the APIs that should exclude them from copyrightability, it's about their abstractness. That's how you should bust such arguments.
7y ago

TheFlyingFish 7y ago

I really only have two questions about this case: 1) The US legal code explicitly excludes "methods of operation" from being copyrightable. Does an API count as "methods of operation"? And if so, what ground does Oracle have left to stand on? 2) If this case goes Oracle's way, does this set the precedent that ANY re-implementations of an existing API are in violation of copyright? I don't know who now owns the original rights to Unix, but if they decide to come after Linux where does that leave us?

beefhash 7y ago
> 2) If this case goes Oracle's way, does this set the precedent that ANY re-implementations of an existing API are in violation of copyright? I don't know who now owns the original rights to Unix, but if they decide to come after Linux where does that leave us? We can't know until a decision is made, but this could likely start a precedent for any re-implementations. The curent copyright holders of UNIX are Micro Focus, who acquired it via buying Attachmade, who had bought Novell, who had bought UNIX System Laboratories from AT&T. Micro Focus mainly sells COBOL and is apparently hellbent on ignoring UNIX as much as possible (multiple people have tried to reach out to them about Ancient UNIX and possibly licensing some missing parts like PWB/UNIX and System III, but the best they've had is a salesperson being confused and trying to sell SUSE Linux). If they ever regain their institutional knowledge that they hold copyrights to UNIX and this decision happens, well, it's open season for Micro Focus v. Red Hat.
kevin_b_er 7y ago
CFAC has ended "methods of operation" where software is concerned. The phrase no longer applies.

paganel 7y ago

Oracle now has a market cap of about $170 billion, give or take a few billion, I'm pretty sure that if a company like Google put its mind to it it could purchase Oracle outright. It would also allow Google a very good entry on the enterprise market where it could push GCP down its clients' throats, imho there's no other way for them to catch up with AWS and Azure.

burtonator 7y ago
Buying oracle might kill them. Like a tiger eating a poisonous snake and getting bitten

grellas 7y ago

No tears will be shed, I am sure, if Google has to pay some billions to fatten the already fat pockets of Oracle but the decision by the Federal Circuit being appealed here made a hash out of key legal foundational items that facilitate the very idea of interoperability in the computing world and therefore cries out to be corrected. My comment at the time the decision was rendered: "This ruling will do what its [the Federal Circuit's] prior expansive reading of patent law did: it will set up a legal standard that invites lawyers and litigants to engage in endless second-guessing over copyright and fair use in areas of connectivity and inter-operability in the computing world and this in turn, as a standing invitation to litigate, cannot be good for future development." (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16691774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16691774 for fuller analysis) The Supreme Court quite often fails to take up discretionary appeals even if the issues loom large for a particular industry or even if an important case was wrongly decided. Sometimes it does so to resolve conflicting rulings among lower federal courts on an important issue; other times, because a case raises important issues of public policy. Don't know if this case will fit the criteria (it didn't on its first cycle of appeal - see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9801251#9802457; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9801251#9802457; also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#4051761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#4051761). I have long been an advocate for solid protection of IP rights but the Federal Circuit here has almost fetishized the idea of copyright protection to the point where it has, in the API and fair use areas, become a caricature of itself. Strong correction is needed on the legal merits of the case. Let us hope that the high level of interest in the tech community, as revealed by the number and quality of amicus briefs filed, will prompt the Supreme Court to intervene and bring soundness and clarity to an important area of law that affects the tech world in profound ways.

monocasa 7y ago
> Sometimes it does so to resolve conflicting rulings among lower federal courts on an important issue; other times, because a case raises important issues of public policy. Don't know if this case will fit the criteria It will. The CAFC's rulings are in open conflict with the normal court that would handle this, the ninth circuit.
deleted 7y ago

javagram 7y ago

IMO copyright protection is way too strong and long lasting for this type of thing. The creation of something like Java should be protected by the patent system which at least has an expiration time of a couple decades rather than a century like copyright. Google taking Java and reimplementing it without paying a penny to Sun (who was requiring a license to other manufacturers at the time) does seem unfair. But I think the law should provide something like the “FRAND” standard for patents, or the mandatory mechanical license for copyright, to prevent a company from blocking interoperability. As far as who’s actually right on the law today.... the SCOTUS decisions will be interesting to read :-)

christkv 7y ago

If Oracle wins this lawsuits does that mean it’s the death kneel for AWS cloning open source wire protocols like MongoDB ?

shmerl 7y ago

Supreme Court should bust the bad decision about copyrightability of APIs.

kevin_b_er 7y ago

Should we start a blacklist of Oracle employees after this falls out that all interfaces are copyrightable? This ends the fundamental notion of interoperability completely across all of computer science. Anyone who continues to work for Oracle after some point can and should be considered an enemy of the the entire field.

Spivak 7y ago
Using an interface for the purposes of interoperability with existing software would and should be considered fair use. Using an interface for the purpose of creating a familiar environment for developers -- maybe not. Creating a Stripe compatibility layer so that existing plug-ins can talk to your service -- covered. Broadly copying Stripe's API and semantics to attract developers with a "Stripe like experience" maybe shouldn't.

smadurange 7y ago

Is this copyability issue for software APIs or more general? I feel like if I copied the full user interface of an iPhone (the way it looks and interacts with the user) and provided my own imementation I'm still liable?