6 ms·

Google's argument is that it falls under fair use to do a clean room implementation of the APIs. District Judge Alsup agreed with this legal idea: "So long as

Google's argument is that it falls under fair use to do a clean room implementation of the APIs. District Judge Alsup agreed with this legal idea: "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical."

gpm 7y ago
Google has several arguments, I find most of them persuasive. The fair use one is sort of a fallback. The more immediate argument is that APIs aren't copyrightable material, since there isn't more than one way to write them. You can't write the API differently and still let existing java programs run with your standard library.
- glofish 7y ago
  They could design their own API and provide an "invisible shim" that transforms the calls to the original API into theirs.
  - gpm 7y ago
    To implement such an "invisible shim" you would still need to write the exact same API that oracle is claiming is copyrighted to let other programs build against it. It's not the internals of the functions that this case is about, it's literally about "class ArrayList { void clear() { [this part excluded from case] } ... }"
    - glofish 7y ago
      not exactly. there is a big difference between an API exposed to all other programmers in the world - versus one that is there for say compatibility. Their entire API works the same way as Java system and you program it as Java - it would be very different if say Android was programmed in Go and they had a way to translate Java programs into Go.
      - gpm 7y ago
        I assume your first post was in response to my "you can't write the API differently" paragraph. If not we are talking past eachother, sorry. If so, your followup is that focusing on Google's actions is missing the point. If there is only one (or a small number) of ways to write it then it isn't copyrighted, so Google can do literally whatever it wants. If there are many ways to write it, the argument fails, and Google taking a more minimal approach to copying it wouldn't change that (it might change the fair use analysis, but that's a separate discussion). It's more of a nitpick, but your reply also exaggerates the scope of the case. No one is arguing in this case that Google was not free to implement Android or an API in Java, they are arguing about re-implementing Java's standard library APIs. As far as this case goes I don't think there is any salient distinction between implementing android in Go, and implementing android in Java with a different standard library api.
tenebrisalietum 7y ago
The whole PC industry was deeply affected, in a positive manner for consumers, in a negative manner for IBM, by Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS ROM API. Imagine if users of BIOS/UEFI API had to pay royalties to IBM (which derived it from CP/M).
- hollerith 7y ago
  >Imagine if users of BIOS/UEFI API had to pay royalties I always thought that every PC maker did have to pay royalties to Phoenix or one of the other BIOS vendors. I know that open-source BIOSes, e.g., coreboot (formerly known as LinuxBIOS), exist, but I got the impression that even at this late stage in the BIOS game, only a minority of machines ship with them. I always thought that Compaq created its clean-room implementation because IBM outright refused to license their BIOS (to Compaq or anyone else).
  - jpollock 7y ago
    Let's rephrase... Imagine a world where Compaq was unable to create a cleanroom implementation of IBM's BIOS because that involved re-implementing the copyrighted APIs.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - all2 7y ago
    Where I work we have a line item for every computer we make for a BIOS royalty. So this happens at least sometimes.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      On the copyright of the actual software by Phoenix or Award or whoever, not an API licensing fee.
  - simcop2387 7y ago
    that's the difference though, theyrr free to make one or use any of the existing ones with the conditions of the authors. they're not forbidden to make their own or use a competitor's like the oracle ruling could otherwise mean.
saghm 7y ago
That was only after the appeals court stuck down Alsup's previous ruling that APIs couldn't be copyrighted and sent the issue back down to him to determine whether it was fair use.

gpm 7y ago

Google has several arguments, I find most of them persuasive. The fair use one is sort of a fallback. The more immediate argument is that APIs aren't copyrightable material, since there isn't more than one way to write them. You can't write the API differently and still let existing java programs run with your standard library.

glofish 7y ago
They could design their own API and provide an "invisible shim" that transforms the calls to the original API into theirs.
- gpm 7y ago
  To implement such an "invisible shim" you would still need to write the exact same API that oracle is claiming is copyrighted to let other programs build against it. It's not the internals of the functions that this case is about, it's literally about "class ArrayList { void clear() { [this part excluded from case] } ... }"
  - glofish 7y ago
    not exactly. there is a big difference between an API exposed to all other programmers in the world - versus one that is there for say compatibility. Their entire API works the same way as Java system and you program it as Java - it would be very different if say Android was programmed in Go and they had a way to translate Java programs into Go.
    - gpm 7y ago
      I assume your first post was in response to my "you can't write the API differently" paragraph. If not we are talking past eachother, sorry. If so, your followup is that focusing on Google's actions is missing the point. If there is only one (or a small number) of ways to write it then it isn't copyrighted, so Google can do literally whatever it wants. If there are many ways to write it, the argument fails, and Google taking a more minimal approach to copying it wouldn't change that (it might change the fair use analysis, but that's a separate discussion). It's more of a nitpick, but your reply also exaggerates the scope of the case. No one is arguing in this case that Google was not free to implement Android or an API in Java, they are arguing about re-implementing Java's standard library APIs. As far as this case goes I don't think there is any salient distinction between implementing android in Go, and implementing android in Java with a different standard library api.

tenebrisalietum 7y ago

The whole PC industry was deeply affected, in a positive manner for consumers, in a negative manner for IBM, by Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS ROM API. Imagine if users of BIOS/UEFI API had to pay royalties to IBM (which derived it from CP/M).

hollerith 7y ago
>Imagine if users of BIOS/UEFI API had to pay royalties I always thought that every PC maker did have to pay royalties to Phoenix or one of the other BIOS vendors. I know that open-source BIOSes, e.g., coreboot (formerly known as LinuxBIOS), exist, but I got the impression that even at this late stage in the BIOS game, only a minority of machines ship with them. I always thought that Compaq created its clean-room implementation because IBM outright refused to license their BIOS (to Compaq or anyone else).
- jpollock 7y ago
  Let's rephrase... Imagine a world where Compaq was unable to create a cleanroom implementation of IBM's BIOS because that involved re-implementing the copyrighted APIs.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- all2 7y ago
  Where I work we have a line item for every computer we make for a BIOS royalty. So this happens at least sometimes.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    On the copyright of the actual software by Phoenix or Award or whoever, not an API licensing fee.
- simcop2387 7y ago
  that's the difference though, theyrr free to make one or use any of the existing ones with the conditions of the authors. they're not forbidden to make their own or use a competitor's like the oracle ruling could otherwise mean.

saghm 7y ago

That was only after the appeals court stuck down Alsup's previous ruling that APIs couldn't be copyrighted and sent the issue back down to him to determine whether it was fair use.