5 ms·

The case has evolved quite a bit, so here's a quick summary: - Oracle claimed that Google copied parts of Java for Android - Claims about copying code were we

by uluyol 7y ago

The case has evolved quite a bit, so here's a quick summary: - Oracle claimed that Google copied parts of Java for Android - Claims about copying code were weak (very little was copied) so that was dropped and this became a question about copying the Java APIs - The judge initially on the case (Alsup) had the jury assume that APIs could be copyrighted and they said it was a copyright violation - Same judge then declared that APIs cannot be copyrighted - Oracle appeals to Federal Circuit (?) which declared that APIs can indeed be copyrighted - Case sent back down to Alsup and Google found guilty - Google appeal to the Supreme Court Now the question is will they agree whether APIs can be copyrighted or not. If so, then Google is far from the only victim here, as anyone reimplementing someone else's API is in trouble.

jpollock 7y ago
It would also mean that all the PC BIOS manufacturers have been violating IBM's copyright for decades.
nradov 7y ago
Just to be pedantic, Google wasn't found guilty. Since this is a civil case they were only found liable.
- pier25 7y ago
  Can you explain the difference?
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Civil (tort) and criminal cases have different terminology and different stakes. Torts are, effectively, non-criminal wrongs against someone else. An unfairness or unevenness that has taken place. You are liable for the damage to another party, but you are not guilty of a crime. You can be forced to pay the other party, but you cannot go to jail. Civil cases also have lower standards of proof to hold someone liable compared to guilt in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", but in civil cases, it's usually "preponderance of the evidence", which more or less means, it's more likely they are responsible than not responsible. (This is also why someone may be not be found guilty in a murder trial, but following that, a family may receive financial compensation through a civil suit that holds them liable for the person's death. It's much easier to cross the bar for a civil case.)
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    One is guilty of a crime, one is liable for damages.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jonny_eh 7y ago
Wouldn't AMD be guilty of copying the x86 instruction set then?
- jryan49 7y ago
  Some parts of x86 were licensed, and AMD needed to pay Intel to use them. Then when AMD built on x86 and made x86-64, Intel had to pay AMD to use that, so they just made an agreement to license both to each other forever. [0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Licensing
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    The reason AMD needed to license x86 from Intel and why Intel needed to license x86-64 from AMD was because both were patented.
tzs 7y ago
You missed a couple. Somewhere in there after it was declared that APIs can be copyrighted, the district court found that Google's use of them was fair use, and then the Federal Circuit overruled that, too.
- wtallis 7y ago
  Also, there were some patent infringement claims that didn't last long, and those are the only reason the Federal Circuit ever got involved rather than the appeal going to the Ninth Circuit. So far, the only "precedent" established by this case is that copyright trolls should always include at least a token patent claim so that they can appeal to the more IP-friendly Federal Circuit.
zaphar 7y ago
Not just reimplementing. If you for instance have to call an external service and you mock their API for testing then you've violated copyright. The same thing if you create a Facade for that API. Just as a matter of course everyday that you write code you are probably interacting with or creating code that violates this Copyright. * Implementing a Language Spec? Copyright violation. * Mocking an external service? Copyright violation. * Wrapping a library call? Copyright violation. The ability treat an interface as a distinctly different thing from an implementation is core to what we do in our jobs everyday. And the importance of being able to use, wrap, or mock out an interface without fear of legal jeopardy is essential to being able to do the work that we do.

by uluyol 7y ago

jpollock 7y ago

It would also mean that all the PC BIOS manufacturers have been violating IBM's copyright for decades.

nradov 7y ago

Just to be pedantic, Google wasn't found guilty. Since this is a civil case they were only found liable.

pier25 7y ago
Can you explain the difference?
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Civil (tort) and criminal cases have different terminology and different stakes. Torts are, effectively, non-criminal wrongs against someone else. An unfairness or unevenness that has taken place. You are liable for the damage to another party, but you are not guilty of a crime. You can be forced to pay the other party, but you cannot go to jail. Civil cases also have lower standards of proof to hold someone liable compared to guilt in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", but in civil cases, it's usually "preponderance of the evidence", which more or less means, it's more likely they are responsible than not responsible. (This is also why someone may be not be found guilty in a murder trial, but following that, a family may receive financial compensation through a civil suit that holds them liable for the person's death. It's much easier to cross the bar for a civil case.)
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  One is guilty of a crime, one is liable for damages.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

jonny_eh 7y ago

Wouldn't AMD be guilty of copying the x86 instruction set then?

jryan49 7y ago
Some parts of x86 were licensed, and AMD needed to pay Intel to use them. Then when AMD built on x86 and made x86-64, Intel had to pay AMD to use that, so they just made an agreement to license both to each other forever. [0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Licensing
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  The reason AMD needed to license x86 from Intel and why Intel needed to license x86-64 from AMD was because both were patented.

tzs 7y ago

You missed a couple. Somewhere in there after it was declared that APIs can be copyrighted, the district court found that Google's use of them was fair use, and then the Federal Circuit overruled that, too.

wtallis 7y ago
Also, there were some patent infringement claims that didn't last long, and those are the only reason the Federal Circuit ever got involved rather than the appeal going to the Ninth Circuit. So far, the only "precedent" established by this case is that copyright trolls should always include at least a token patent claim so that they can appeal to the more IP-friendly Federal Circuit.

zaphar 7y ago

Not just reimplementing. If you for instance have to call an external service and you mock their API for testing then you've violated copyright. The same thing if you create a Facade for that API. Just as a matter of course everyday that you write code you are probably interacting with or creating code that violates this Copyright. * Implementing a Language Spec? Copyright violation. * Mocking an external service? Copyright violation. * Wrapping a library call? Copyright violation. The ability treat an interface as a distinctly different thing from an implementation is core to what we do in our jobs everyday. And the importance of being able to use, wrap, or mock out an interface without fear of legal jeopardy is essential to being able to do the work that we do.