17 ms·

Oracle copied Amazon’s API – was that copyright infringement?

292 points by callwaiting 7y ago

dlgeek 7y ago
I don't understand how Oracle's position here about how the Apache license covering code covers the API and their position in Oracle vs. Google.
- saghm 7y ago
  Their position seems pretty straightforward; other people should have to pay them money, but they shouldn't have to pay other people money. They have this same position on pretty much everything else too.
  - notlukesky 7y ago
    I don’t understand why stating the facts is cause for being downvoted?? The hypocrisy is well known and documented.
    - tapland 7y ago
      It doesn't need to be stated. From reading the more detailed comments about the cases one can draw their conclusions. There is no need for simple 'because they are evil'-comments. It doesn't help discussion.
      - opless 7y ago
        Maybe it does? A causal reader might not be aware of how hypocritical certain operators are in the IT space and are reading this for the first time. Just because it's obvious TO YOU doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone. Though I do agree that lots of "because they're evil" comments do not add to the discussion. Personally I think downvoting should be done carefully and not because the downvoter disagrees with the comment.
        nurettin 7y ago
        Since we are on the meta side of HN usage, I'm really curious about why people here take time off to discuss their opinions at length. I occasionally throw an idea or two out there to test what sort of response they would get, but trying to convince someone out of their firmly held beliefs by arguing with them at length in the threads? That looks like a complete waste and it is unsettlingly abundant. Especially when the topic is a grey area where stakes are high. High for someone else of course. Not the people who discuss these things.
        opless 7y ago
        > complete waste I agree. I just forget occasionally.
        pas 7y ago
        Hm, it sometimes helps to organize thoughts to form a sort of well-rounded argument. I like reading similar comments from others. (A sort of bigger picture exposition, and/or a detailed technical walk-through that demonstrates some point(s).) Usually these comments are much more concise than whatever fluff article is linked. (Or they provide some required context for posts that are very much in need of it.)
      - killjoywashere 7y ago
        > It doesn't help discussion. Maybe it doesn't increase the level of discussion here, but maybe there's value in steering the scarce resource of intelligent conversants toward more productive threads? Additionally, getting people up to speed on corporate citizenship of various companies is an ongoing process, an ambient meta conversation that pervades many conversations.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        But I think the question of Oracle's motivations is pretty important here. If they're not trying to be consistent, then critically analyzing their stated positions on IP is like trying to find the research behind a CEO's statements that their company has the best products and hires the best people.
        tapland 7y ago
        s it is important, and there can be many reasons not to be consistent. You will probably win 1 of the cases, it will force rulings to be used later and one of the ways of getting there is to sue everyone for all kinds of reasons. 'They just want money' is too simplistic even if that is the case, because can they afford to keep doing this to everyone? Is there a strategy? And if it becomes a bandwagon of people with simple explanations there will be resistance towards anyone who figures out what could be their reasoning.
    - jayd16 7y ago
      The snark is well warranted but it doesn't add to the conversation so I understand the down votes.
      - isatty 7y ago
        The post they are replying to says "I don't understand oracles position here" and the comment explains it succinctly and factually - how does it not add to the conversation?
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        It was somewhat snarky
- EsssM7QVMehFPAs 7y ago
  The Oracle vs. Google case is based around the copying of header files, including comments, verbatim as is. The Oracle Amazon API usage is an identical re-implementation of the interfaces, but as a web solution there is per se nothing to copy in verbatim form. The IBM-PC copycats back in the 80s went as far as clean room re-implementing the system with engineers who never saw the documentation. Ripping the header files out of a proprietary license package is quite cheap from a legal standpoint in comparison, even if open source is provided.
monocasa 7y ago
I wonder who owns SQL. I hope IBM has been asking them this as well.
- ananonymoususer 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase
  - monocasa 7y ago
    Sybase wasn't founded until five years after Oracle DB's first release.
- grzm 7y ago
  > "I wonder who owns SQL." I don't know what it would mean for someone to "own SQL". It's an ISO standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#Interoperability_and_standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#Interoperability_and_stand...
  - monocasa 7y ago
    So is Java, but here we are. https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/
    - grzm 7y ago
      > So is Java, but here we are. > https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ That article describes when Sun was recognized as an official submitter for a proposed standardization of Java. It later withdrew. > "In 1997, Sun Microsystems approached the ISO/IEC JTC 1 standards body and later the Ecma International to formalize Java, but it soon withdrew from the process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#Hi... Java is not an ISO standard.
Proven 7y ago
Doesn't everyone copy Amazon's S3 API?
smiljo 7y ago
Seems like Oracle is taking totally contradictory positions in this case and the Google one. > Did Oracle infringe Amazon's copyright here? Ars Technica contacted Oracle to ask them if they had a license to copy Amazon's S3 API. An Oracle spokeswoman said that the S3 API was licensed under an Apache 2.0 license. She pointed us to the Amazon SDK for Java, which does indeed come with an Apache 2.0 license. > However, the Amazon SDK is code that uses the S3 API, not code that implements it—the difference between a customer who orders hash browns and the Waffle House cook who interprets the orders. While I'm not a lawyer and didn't study the Google case in that much detail, I don't see how they can claim that their own Java APIs can be copyrighted, and then defending their copying of Amazon's API on the grounds that an SDK using it is open source. I would think they could just look at the documentation, and skip the SDK altogether. :)
- nimbius 7y ago
  how do Ceph and PureStorage handle their S3 implementations? the API doesnt seem variable enough that I cant use duplicity to send/receive with either of these...
- paulddraper 7y ago
  It is contradictory, but until the courts finally decide whether an API can be copyrighted, no one knows if they have to pay royalties or not, Oracle included.
- rhacker 7y ago
  It seems perfectly reasonable for Oracle to defend itself in court this way. It's kinda like an automatic win - if they get the Google lawsuit, then hey - bank... and then they will likely lose this case - but the stakes are pretty much tiny. Also AWS would have to go after a bunch of open source replicas of S3 too - which they probably DON'T want to do. And if they don't, Oracle may have a counter case in that it was unjustifiably targeted. However if they lose the Google case, then hey, they did nothing wrong here. Seems like a win win for Oracle.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
chunsj 7y ago
This is why we should use free software and not just open source one. And the importance of GPL3 for the humanity.
- adharmad 7y ago
  How would using a GPL3 license be helpful? Oracle is not embedding or even dynamically linking to Amazon S3 APIs. They have created their own implementation but copied the signatures to be compatible with Amazon S3 APIs. This is similar to Linus creating a free operating system while adhering to the POSIX standard.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  The GPL was created partly in reaction to copyright protection being extended to source code. Copyleft licenses subvert copyright by forcing all involved to do the opposite of what they'd normally do with a copyrighted work. The real victory for humanity would be the end of copyright itself. Too much time is wasted on trying to understand and work around this fundamentally broken system.
  - ms4720 7y ago
    Why? Should not content creators make a fair profit on their content? This includes books and movies. If you read Stallman's early writings on the matter his goal was to have software development funded and directed by the government, so no linux or bsds for example.
    - matheusmoreira 7y ago
      Creators need to figure out how to get paid before their works are created. Perhaps patronage via services like Patreon is the way to go. If we keep relying on copyright, we'll eventually lose everything that makes computers great. Copyright infringement is trivial because we own our machines and have full control over the software that runs on them. Governments and the copyright industry are growing increasingly hostile to the idea that citizens should be able to run whatever software they want. Therefore, maintaining the illusion that information is scarce is fundamentally incompatible with the freedoms envisioned by Stallman's licenses, especially the latest versions. This API copyright issue also threatens competing free software implementations of proprietary APIs. Projects like Wine should be directly affected by the court's decision.
kalium-xyz 7y ago
Just to be clear, you can get away with this?
- gpm 7y ago
  If they win the Google-Oracle case, they'll probably end up paying Amazon a bit in a new Amazon-Oracle case. But yes, I'm pretty sure they can get away with this in the sense of avoiding submitting themselves to the their interpretation of the law unless/until it's ruled correct by a court. The Google-Oracle case looks like it will be heard by the supreme court sometime in March, we'll get a ruling before the court goes out of session for the summer (the court takes a summer break). I'm pretty sure even if Amazon sued Oracle now, that court would be happy to stay the case until the Supreme court rules. Even if the court wasn't actually willing to stay the case, it seems highly unlikely it would be at all resolved before the supreme court rules. Oracle is capable of delaying for a few months... IANAL
- o-__-o 7y ago
  to be clear, there is nothing illegal with reverse engineering something. the burden is on the plantiff to prove infrigement (uphill battle). the problem is when the source code with an unfriendly license is made available then the question becomes is the new implementation infringing the work of the original. oracle v google is tough because google basically took java and executed 's/Java/GoogleJava/g'. the amazon plea is different because amazon published their SDK AND gave it a permissive license. further oracle is not looking at the S3 code to figure out how to implement the API, they must implement the functionality of the API based off guesses of the client SDK.
  - gpm 7y ago
    The permissive license here does not matter, since Oracle did not comply with the extremely liberal terms of the license. The implementation of Java and the implementation of the AWS API does not matter, since the Oracle-Google suit is (at this point) strictly over the structure sequence and organization of the APIs. How the code implementing the API came to be is completely and wholly irrelevant to the suit at hand. Not that it matters (as explained above), but you're also wrong that google took java and executed 's/java/GoogleJava/g'. They re-implemented the entire API in dispute by hand, the only portion they copied from Oracle's implementation was the API.
michaelgiba 7y ago
Amazon did the same thing to MongoDB by replicating their API and as far as I know there hasn’t been any successful litigation on Mongos behalf
- whoisthisfor 7y ago
  https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/mongodb-introduction https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/mongodb-int... Others do this
ben509 7y ago
Whether I like their position or not is irrelevant, whether I like Oracle is irrelevant, even whether it's what the law says is irrelevant: Oracle's position and their actions are entirely consistent. They're copying the S3 API, and they did so under the license granted in the S3 client software. If you publish either your client or server software, or some specification of your API and you do so with some kind of license, you are licensing your API. Amazon's publishing of their client software under Apache means they have licensed their API to everyone who downloaded it, including Oracle. The license is irrevocable. Google copied Java's API without getting license to do so. Java was not published by Oracle or Sun with such a license, nor did Google obtain such license to use their API by contacting Oracle for one. The I in API means interface. Ars is getting confused by the API and the implementation of it here: > However, the Amazon SDK is code that uses the S3 API, not code that implements it—the difference between a customer who orders hash browns and the Waffle House cook who interprets the orders. Code that uses an API will be organized completely differently from code that implements one; it may not even contain the whole API. And Oracle has for years argued that using an API is unrelated to reimplementation and not an infringement of copyright (or else every app developer using Java would infringe). The client library isn't the code using the API, it contains the the API. Oracle argues in the link: > This case is about Google’scopying of Oracle’s work. App programmers are unaffected. They remain free to write any program they want availing themselves of the Java APIs, for free. The decision only requires platform developers — usually large corporations with tremendous resources, like Google—to take a license if they want to copy Oracle’s work and incorporate it into a substitute commercial product. Oracle's point here is that an application using a small portion of the API is acceptable copying. AWS published and licensed the entire client software, containing the entire API for S3.
- gpm 7y ago
  > They're copying the S3 API, and they did so under the license granted in the S3 client software. This is plainly false. To do so under the license they would have had to comply with the terms of the license, which include attribution. They did not do so.
  - 7y ago
ggm 7y ago
I didn't see the line in this which said Oracle's API claims vested in Java bindings which were covered by the apache licence. So, in the whole 'hypocritical' thing, it behoves us to be clear, that product A, not in Apache licence, and product B, in Apache licence, do not actually inform anything in a legal claim of API copyright in product A, vs product B I don't personally think an API should be subject to copyright, I think copyright and patents in things like this is counter productive. But the law here isn't in alignment with my personal views, and Oracle's defence does not vest in some supposed consistency across things they use and things they own: if they can prove they own a thing which is bound by IPR/Copyright rules, then thats the law. 'Do not steal my property' is not rebutted by 'but you stole somebody else's unrelated property in another situation' -If that was the case, an awful lot of law has to be re-written, its pretty much tit-for-tat law at that point. Another take would be "even criminals have civil rights"
- jayd16 7y ago
  This misrepresents the situation as the client SDK is not what is being copied. In fact, you can use the same Amazon client SDK to hit the Oracle backend api, which Oracle did copy from S3's backend.
  - ggm 7y ago
    Sorry, but aren't you making my point for me? people are diving into 'hypocrite' arguments, comparing apples and lobster. In what way do I mis-represent the situation? Oracle is suing Google for copying an API. People are saying "but Oracle copied the Amazon API" -I'm trying to say "yea.. nah: not relevant"
    - loeg 7y ago
      The point of the case is to establish what the law is. In that context, pointing out that the litigant is a hypocrite who would themselves run afoul of their own proposed extension of copyright law is extremely relevant to a rational body considering the merits of the case.
tingletech 7y ago
Did they copy the API, or, are they using open source software to implement the API?
warmfuzzykitten 7y ago
What a stupid premise. The Apache version 2 license permits, well, pretty much any use of the software, source or binary. The Sun/Oracle copyrights do not.
- franga2000 7y ago
  The Apache license applies to the Java SDK (== the Java library Amazon made to help developers use their (HTTP)API). It does not apply to the Amazon (HTTP) API specification (or implementation) itself. Oracle could, for example, implement their own "Oracle storage bucket Java SDK" with a matching (Java) API that developers could drop in instead of Amazon's in their Java projects and wouldn't have to change any code, but that is in no way transferable to the (HTTP) API (i.e. the one that runs on Amazon's servers).
gregorygoc 7y ago
Can I patent open/read/write/close methods? I might have an idea for the greatest troll in modern era.
- jess-sch 7y ago
  At least for close(), I'm very much in favor. Maybe that would push more languages to implement automatic destructors. (More realistically though, it'd unfortunately mostly result in mass renaming to .destroy())
- Spivak 7y ago
  No, because a patent would only cover your novel implementation of those functions. You can't copyright them either in the same way that Harry Potter is copyrighted but not the word 'the' which is used throughout.
Pandabob 7y ago
This is wildly off-topic, but I don't understand how Oracle still makes money. Who are their customers? What are they selling to them and what's their comparative advantage? Do they make money off of MySQL? Java? Are they selling services? I don't get how they're still in business.
- syshum 7y ago
  I know many companies that just sent them 5-6 Figure checks to license JRE.... They also have Lots of Med to Large organizations using a number of their products, a lot of them are Oracle customers simply because they were using products that oracle acquired and since they are now entrenched into the business process it is easier to keep paying Oracle than extract those products with alternatives
  - Pandabob 7y ago
    Interesting. I wonder how threatened Oracle's business is by the big cloud providers, Amazon and Microsoft specifically? I guess not enough to reflect it on the stock price.
- PedroBatista 7y ago
  Pretty much every medium to big government entity and private corporation or bank runs some sort of Oracle DB or software with foggy ROI. Their customers are on the business of not losing what they already have, so a couple million here and there is not a big deal.

292 points by callwaiting 7y ago

I don't understand how Oracle's position here about how the Apache license covering code covers the API and their position in Oracle vs. Google.

saghm 7y ago
Their position seems pretty straightforward; other people should have to pay them money, but they shouldn't have to pay other people money. They have this same position on pretty much everything else too.
- notlukesky 7y ago
  I don’t understand why stating the facts is cause for being downvoted?? The hypocrisy is well known and documented.
  - tapland 7y ago
    It doesn't need to be stated. From reading the more detailed comments about the cases one can draw their conclusions. There is no need for simple 'because they are evil'-comments. It doesn't help discussion.
    - opless 7y ago
      Maybe it does? A causal reader might not be aware of how hypocritical certain operators are in the IT space and are reading this for the first time. Just because it's obvious TO YOU doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone. Though I do agree that lots of "because they're evil" comments do not add to the discussion. Personally I think downvoting should be done carefully and not because the downvoter disagrees with the comment.
      - nurettin 7y ago
        Since we are on the meta side of HN usage, I'm really curious about why people here take time off to discuss their opinions at length. I occasionally throw an idea or two out there to test what sort of response they would get, but trying to convince someone out of their firmly held beliefs by arguing with them at length in the threads? That looks like a complete waste and it is unsettlingly abundant. Especially when the topic is a grey area where stakes are high. High for someone else of course. Not the people who discuss these things.
        opless 7y ago
        > complete waste I agree. I just forget occasionally.
        pas 7y ago
        Hm, it sometimes helps to organize thoughts to form a sort of well-rounded argument. I like reading similar comments from others. (A sort of bigger picture exposition, and/or a detailed technical walk-through that demonstrates some point(s).) Usually these comments are much more concise than whatever fluff article is linked. (Or they provide some required context for posts that are very much in need of it.)
    - killjoywashere 7y ago
      > It doesn't help discussion. Maybe it doesn't increase the level of discussion here, but maybe there's value in steering the scarce resource of intelligent conversants toward more productive threads? Additionally, getting people up to speed on corporate citizenship of various companies is an ongoing process, an ambient meta conversation that pervades many conversations.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      But I think the question of Oracle's motivations is pretty important here. If they're not trying to be consistent, then critically analyzing their stated positions on IP is like trying to find the research behind a CEO's statements that their company has the best products and hires the best people.
      - tapland 7y ago
        s it is important, and there can be many reasons not to be consistent. You will probably win 1 of the cases, it will force rulings to be used later and one of the ways of getting there is to sue everyone for all kinds of reasons. 'They just want money' is too simplistic even if that is the case, because can they afford to keep doing this to everyone? Is there a strategy? And if it becomes a bandwagon of people with simple explanations there will be resistance towards anyone who figures out what could be their reasoning.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    The snark is well warranted but it doesn't add to the conversation so I understand the down votes.
    - isatty 7y ago
      The post they are replying to says "I don't understand oracles position here" and the comment explains it succinctly and factually - how does it not add to the conversation?
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        It was somewhat snarky
EsssM7QVMehFPAs 7y ago
The Oracle vs. Google case is based around the copying of header files, including comments, verbatim as is. The Oracle Amazon API usage is an identical re-implementation of the interfaces, but as a web solution there is per se nothing to copy in verbatim form. The IBM-PC copycats back in the 80s went as far as clean room re-implementing the system with engineers who never saw the documentation. Ripping the header files out of a proprietary license package is quite cheap from a legal standpoint in comparison, even if open source is provided.

monocasa 7y ago

I wonder who owns SQL. I hope IBM has been asking them this as well.

ananonymoususer 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase
- monocasa 7y ago
  Sybase wasn't founded until five years after Oracle DB's first release.
grzm 7y ago
> "I wonder who owns SQL." I don't know what it would mean for someone to "own SQL". It's an ISO standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#Interoperability_and_standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#Interoperability_and_stand...
- monocasa 7y ago
  So is Java, but here we are. https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/
  - grzm 7y ago
    > So is Java, but here we are. > https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ That article describes when Sun was recognized as an official submitter for a proposed standardization of Java. It later withdrew. > "In 1997, Sun Microsystems approached the ISO/IEC JTC 1 standards body and later the Ecma International to formalize Java, but it soon withdrew from the process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#Hi... Java is not an ISO standard.

Proven 7y ago

Doesn't everyone copy Amazon's S3 API?

smiljo 7y ago

Seems like Oracle is taking totally contradictory positions in this case and the Google one. > Did Oracle infringe Amazon's copyright here? Ars Technica contacted Oracle to ask them if they had a license to copy Amazon's S3 API. An Oracle spokeswoman said that the S3 API was licensed under an Apache 2.0 license. She pointed us to the Amazon SDK for Java, which does indeed come with an Apache 2.0 license. > However, the Amazon SDK is code that uses the S3 API, not code that implements it—the difference between a customer who orders hash browns and the Waffle House cook who interprets the orders. While I'm not a lawyer and didn't study the Google case in that much detail, I don't see how they can claim that their own Java APIs can be copyrighted, and then defending their copying of Amazon's API on the grounds that an SDK using it is open source. I would think they could just look at the documentation, and skip the SDK altogether. :)

nimbius 7y ago
how do Ceph and PureStorage handle their S3 implementations? the API doesnt seem variable enough that I cant use duplicity to send/receive with either of these...
paulddraper 7y ago
It is contradictory, but until the courts finally decide whether an API can be copyrighted, no one knows if they have to pay royalties or not, Oracle included.
rhacker 7y ago
It seems perfectly reasonable for Oracle to defend itself in court this way. It's kinda like an automatic win - if they get the Google lawsuit, then hey - bank... and then they will likely lose this case - but the stakes are pretty much tiny. Also AWS would have to go after a bunch of open source replicas of S3 too - which they probably DON'T want to do. And if they don't, Oracle may have a counter case in that it was unjustifiably targeted. However if they lose the Google case, then hey, they did nothing wrong here. Seems like a win win for Oracle.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

chunsj 7y ago

This is why we should use free software and not just open source one. And the importance of GPL3 for the humanity.

adharmad 7y ago
How would using a GPL3 license be helpful? Oracle is not embedding or even dynamically linking to Amazon S3 APIs. They have created their own implementation but copied the signatures to be compatible with Amazon S3 APIs. This is similar to Linus creating a free operating system while adhering to the POSIX standard.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
The GPL was created partly in reaction to copyright protection being extended to source code. Copyleft licenses subvert copyright by forcing all involved to do the opposite of what they'd normally do with a copyrighted work. The real victory for humanity would be the end of copyright itself. Too much time is wasted on trying to understand and work around this fundamentally broken system.
- ms4720 7y ago
  Why? Should not content creators make a fair profit on their content? This includes books and movies. If you read Stallman's early writings on the matter his goal was to have software development funded and directed by the government, so no linux or bsds for example.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    Creators need to figure out how to get paid before their works are created. Perhaps patronage via services like Patreon is the way to go. If we keep relying on copyright, we'll eventually lose everything that makes computers great. Copyright infringement is trivial because we own our machines and have full control over the software that runs on them. Governments and the copyright industry are growing increasingly hostile to the idea that citizens should be able to run whatever software they want. Therefore, maintaining the illusion that information is scarce is fundamentally incompatible with the freedoms envisioned by Stallman's licenses, especially the latest versions. This API copyright issue also threatens competing free software implementations of proprietary APIs. Projects like Wine should be directly affected by the court's decision.

kalium-xyz 7y ago

Just to be clear, you can get away with this?

gpm 7y ago
If they win the Google-Oracle case, they'll probably end up paying Amazon a bit in a new Amazon-Oracle case. But yes, I'm pretty sure they can get away with this in the sense of avoiding submitting themselves to the their interpretation of the law unless/until it's ruled correct by a court. The Google-Oracle case looks like it will be heard by the supreme court sometime in March, we'll get a ruling before the court goes out of session for the summer (the court takes a summer break). I'm pretty sure even if Amazon sued Oracle now, that court would be happy to stay the case until the Supreme court rules. Even if the court wasn't actually willing to stay the case, it seems highly unlikely it would be at all resolved before the supreme court rules. Oracle is capable of delaying for a few months... IANAL
o-__-o 7y ago
to be clear, there is nothing illegal with reverse engineering something. the burden is on the plantiff to prove infrigement (uphill battle). the problem is when the source code with an unfriendly license is made available then the question becomes is the new implementation infringing the work of the original. oracle v google is tough because google basically took java and executed 's/Java/GoogleJava/g'. the amazon plea is different because amazon published their SDK AND gave it a permissive license. further oracle is not looking at the S3 code to figure out how to implement the API, they must implement the functionality of the API based off guesses of the client SDK.
- gpm 7y ago
  The permissive license here does not matter, since Oracle did not comply with the extremely liberal terms of the license. The implementation of Java and the implementation of the AWS API does not matter, since the Oracle-Google suit is (at this point) strictly over the structure sequence and organization of the APIs. How the code implementing the API came to be is completely and wholly irrelevant to the suit at hand. Not that it matters (as explained above), but you're also wrong that google took java and executed 's/java/GoogleJava/g'. They re-implemented the entire API in dispute by hand, the only portion they copied from Oracle's implementation was the API.

michaelgiba 7y ago

Amazon did the same thing to MongoDB by replicating their API and as far as I know there hasn’t been any successful litigation on Mongos behalf

whoisthisfor 7y ago
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/mongodb-introduction https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/mongodb-int... Others do this

ben509 7y ago

Whether I like their position or not is irrelevant, whether I like Oracle is irrelevant, even whether it's what the law says is irrelevant: Oracle's position and their actions are entirely consistent. They're copying the S3 API, and they did so under the license granted in the S3 client software. If you publish either your client or server software, or some specification of your API and you do so with some kind of license, you are licensing your API. Amazon's publishing of their client software under Apache means they have licensed their API to everyone who downloaded it, including Oracle. The license is irrevocable. Google copied Java's API without getting license to do so. Java was not published by Oracle or Sun with such a license, nor did Google obtain such license to use their API by contacting Oracle for one. The I in API means interface. Ars is getting confused by the API and the implementation of it here: > However, the Amazon SDK is code that uses the S3 API, not code that implements it—the difference between a customer who orders hash browns and the Waffle House cook who interprets the orders. Code that uses an API will be organized completely differently from code that implements one; it may not even contain the whole API. And Oracle has for years argued that using an API is unrelated to reimplementation and not an infringement of copyright (or else every app developer using Java would infringe). The client library isn't the code using the API, it contains the the API. Oracle argues in the link: > This case is about Google’scopying of Oracle’s work. App programmers are unaffected. They remain free to write any program they want availing themselves of the Java APIs, for free. The decision only requires platform developers — usually large corporations with tremendous resources, like Google—to take a license if they want to copy Oracle’s work and incorporate it into a substitute commercial product. Oracle's point here is that an application using a small portion of the API is acceptable copying. AWS published and licensed the entire client software, containing the entire API for S3.

gpm 7y ago
> They're copying the S3 API, and they did so under the license granted in the S3 client software. This is plainly false. To do so under the license they would have had to comply with the terms of the license, which include attribution. They did not do so.
- 7y ago

ggm 7y ago

I didn't see the line in this which said Oracle's API claims vested in Java bindings which were covered by the apache licence. So, in the whole 'hypocritical' thing, it behoves us to be clear, that product A, not in Apache licence, and product B, in Apache licence, do not actually inform anything in a legal claim of API copyright in product A, vs product B I don't personally think an API should be subject to copyright, I think copyright and patents in things like this is counter productive. But the law here isn't in alignment with my personal views, and Oracle's defence does not vest in some supposed consistency across things they use and things they own: if they can prove they own a thing which is bound by IPR/Copyright rules, then thats the law. 'Do not steal my property' is not rebutted by 'but you stole somebody else's unrelated property in another situation' -If that was the case, an awful lot of law has to be re-written, its pretty much tit-for-tat law at that point. Another take would be "even criminals have civil rights"

jayd16 7y ago
This misrepresents the situation as the client SDK is not what is being copied. In fact, you can use the same Amazon client SDK to hit the Oracle backend api, which Oracle did copy from S3's backend.
- ggm 7y ago
  Sorry, but aren't you making my point for me? people are diving into 'hypocrite' arguments, comparing apples and lobster. In what way do I mis-represent the situation? Oracle is suing Google for copying an API. People are saying "but Oracle copied the Amazon API" -I'm trying to say "yea.. nah: not relevant"
  - loeg 7y ago
    The point of the case is to establish what the law is. In that context, pointing out that the litigant is a hypocrite who would themselves run afoul of their own proposed extension of copyright law is extremely relevant to a rational body considering the merits of the case.

tingletech 7y ago

Did they copy the API, or, are they using open source software to implement the API?

warmfuzzykitten 7y ago

What a stupid premise. The Apache version 2 license permits, well, pretty much any use of the software, source or binary. The Sun/Oracle copyrights do not.

franga2000 7y ago
The Apache license applies to the Java SDK (== the Java library Amazon made to help developers use their (HTTP)API). It does not apply to the Amazon (HTTP) API specification (or implementation) itself. Oracle could, for example, implement their own "Oracle storage bucket Java SDK" with a matching (Java) API that developers could drop in instead of Amazon's in their Java projects and wouldn't have to change any code, but that is in no way transferable to the (HTTP) API (i.e. the one that runs on Amazon's servers).

gregorygoc 7y ago

Can I patent open/read/write/close methods? I might have an idea for the greatest troll in modern era.

jess-sch 7y ago
At least for close(), I'm very much in favor. Maybe that would push more languages to implement automatic destructors. (More realistically though, it'd unfortunately mostly result in mass renaming to .destroy())
Spivak 7y ago
No, because a patent would only cover your novel implementation of those functions. You can't copyright them either in the same way that Harry Potter is copyrighted but not the word 'the' which is used throughout.

Pandabob 7y ago

This is wildly off-topic, but I don't understand how Oracle still makes money. Who are their customers? What are they selling to them and what's their comparative advantage? Do they make money off of MySQL? Java? Are they selling services? I don't get how they're still in business.

syshum 7y ago
I know many companies that just sent them 5-6 Figure checks to license JRE.... They also have Lots of Med to Large organizations using a number of their products, a lot of them are Oracle customers simply because they were using products that oracle acquired and since they are now entrenched into the business process it is easier to keep paying Oracle than extract those products with alternatives
- Pandabob 7y ago
  Interesting. I wonder how threatened Oracle's business is by the big cloud providers, Amazon and Microsoft specifically? I guess not enough to reflect it on the stock price.
PedroBatista 7y ago
Pretty much every medium to big government entity and private corporation or bank runs some sort of Oracle DB or software with foggy ROI. Their customers are on the business of not losing what they already have, so a couple million here and there is not a big deal.