4 ms·

> Seems like Oracle is taking totally contradictory positions in this case and the Google one. As a legal strategy, that's not a problem, and in fact it's what

> Seems like Oracle is taking totally contradictory positions in this case and the Google one. As a legal strategy, that's not a problem, and in fact it's what lawyers are supposed to do: make the best possible arguments they can in any case they are a part of. It should not be interpreted as a case of corporate schizophrenia -- it's just the lawyers doing their jobs. This can lead to contradictory positions if multiple cases are going on at the same time. That's fine. The legal system is designed around the assumption that this will happen.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I think at Supreme Court level such a contradiction could be a (minor) problem, because the economic consequences of API copyrightability without fair use play a big role in that case. If Oracle's use of Amazon's API was based on an industry-wide fair use assumption that has supported the industry's economic viability over decades that could damage their argument. However, I think that Oracle would argue that there is no contradiction. In the case now before the US Supreme Court, Oracle argues that software copyrights do extend to the interface/API and that reimplementing the interface does not constitute fair use. With regard to Amazon's API, Oracle argues that the license grants them permission to reimplement the interface. This argument doesn't rely on disputing copyrightability of APIs or on fair use. It simply says that copyright holders get to decide whether or not reimplementation is permitted.
- ratel 7y ago
  Oracle will argue anything as long as it suites them. That seems to be the nature of modern litigation. Fact in this matter is that the license for the Amazon API does allow the API to be copied. But Oracle did and does not follow the license, because the required attribution is missing. They are therefor not protected by the license. It is like using an illegal copy of Windows and claiming you had the right to use it under the license for the small omission of not having paid for it. Even if the change the code to include attribution they are still liable for significant damages to Amazon for the period preceding the correction. Amazon can claim to them the attribution is a very significant part of the license agreement: It would deter competitors having to advertise Amazon and tell their customers that their product was actually invented by someone having a competing product. Google can claim their fair use was actually already common practice, as most of us thought. Even Oracle itself assumed and acted on that assumption that copying APIs was fair use / not copyrightable and did not require following a license agreement, as they did not. Worst case for Google is that they should not have to pay significant damages for something they and others would see as a common mistake and Oracle's reversal complying with the Amazon license is proof that there was no established judicial practice to follow. So Oracle is in a pickle: Either they claim copying the Amazon API was fair-use, or APIs are not copyrightable and they lose the case against Google. Or they claim that the license of Amazon allowed for copying of the API and they violated that license. The harder they push Google in the later case the bigger the risk Amazon will claim their share of Oracle's pie in return. Better get the spreadsheets out.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    Oracle claims to be in compliance with the license. In my opinion, that's all they need to do in order to completely separate the two cases and make it clear that they are not relying on a fair use defense. It doesn't matter whether or not they are eventually found to be in breach of Amazon's license. Also, the potential damages in these two cases are presumably very different. Google built an entire industry on top of Android whilst Oracle is limping along with a me-too cloud offering, some tiny part of which uses Amazon's API. So I think Oracle would gladly take the risk of losing that case if they can win the other one.
    - voxic11 7y ago
      But the license is for an SDK that talks to the API not the API itself which is what they reimplemented. It's like if Google claimed that since Oracle once released an Apache licenced Java application that means they can reimplement any Java APIs that application used.
      - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        My point is that Oracle doesn't have to be right in their potential dispute with Amazon. All they have to do is use a defense that does not rely on denying copyrightability of APIs or on fair use. And that's what they are doing by referring to the SDK license.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
floodyberry- 7y ago
I believe you meant to say that yes, it is contradictory, and both Oracle and their lawyers don't care about what is right, just what they can get away with
- MrSourz 7y ago
  That derives from the system they’re operating in though. In a capitalist society the notion that unless compelled by government intervention people and corporations will act in their own self interest is exactly what I’d expect. If a company is filling a role and 2 similar applicants get matching offers and one accepts the first and the other negotiates I wouldn’t expect the company to go back to the first person and offer him more to bring them to parity.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
But shouldn't Oracle be concerned about this from the perspective of overall business strategy? Oracle's case with Google will likely set precedent. If the side they're arguing for is going to hurt another side of their business by removing their legal argument, why are they fighting?
- gpm 7y ago
  Oracle's case with Google is for billions of dollars, it's unlikely to hurt the rest of their business to the same tune.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fauigerzigerk 7y ago

I think at Supreme Court level such a contradiction could be a (minor) problem, because the economic consequences of API copyrightability without fair use play a big role in that case. If Oracle's use of Amazon's API was based on an industry-wide fair use assumption that has supported the industry's economic viability over decades that could damage their argument. However, I think that Oracle would argue that there is no contradiction. In the case now before the US Supreme Court, Oracle argues that software copyrights do extend to the interface/API and that reimplementing the interface does not constitute fair use. With regard to Amazon's API, Oracle argues that the license grants them permission to reimplement the interface. This argument doesn't rely on disputing copyrightability of APIs or on fair use. It simply says that copyright holders get to decide whether or not reimplementation is permitted.

ratel 7y ago
Oracle will argue anything as long as it suites them. That seems to be the nature of modern litigation. Fact in this matter is that the license for the Amazon API does allow the API to be copied. But Oracle did and does not follow the license, because the required attribution is missing. They are therefor not protected by the license. It is like using an illegal copy of Windows and claiming you had the right to use it under the license for the small omission of not having paid for it. Even if the change the code to include attribution they are still liable for significant damages to Amazon for the period preceding the correction. Amazon can claim to them the attribution is a very significant part of the license agreement: It would deter competitors having to advertise Amazon and tell their customers that their product was actually invented by someone having a competing product. Google can claim their fair use was actually already common practice, as most of us thought. Even Oracle itself assumed and acted on that assumption that copying APIs was fair use / not copyrightable and did not require following a license agreement, as they did not. Worst case for Google is that they should not have to pay significant damages for something they and others would see as a common mistake and Oracle's reversal complying with the Amazon license is proof that there was no established judicial practice to follow. So Oracle is in a pickle: Either they claim copying the Amazon API was fair-use, or APIs are not copyrightable and they lose the case against Google. Or they claim that the license of Amazon allowed for copying of the API and they violated that license. The harder they push Google in the later case the bigger the risk Amazon will claim their share of Oracle's pie in return. Better get the spreadsheets out.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  Oracle claims to be in compliance with the license. In my opinion, that's all they need to do in order to completely separate the two cases and make it clear that they are not relying on a fair use defense. It doesn't matter whether or not they are eventually found to be in breach of Amazon's license. Also, the potential damages in these two cases are presumably very different. Google built an entire industry on top of Android whilst Oracle is limping along with a me-too cloud offering, some tiny part of which uses Amazon's API. So I think Oracle would gladly take the risk of losing that case if they can win the other one.
  - voxic11 7y ago
    But the license is for an SDK that talks to the API not the API itself which is what they reimplemented. It's like if Google claimed that since Oracle once released an Apache licenced Java application that means they can reimplement any Java APIs that application used.
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      My point is that Oracle doesn't have to be right in their potential dispute with Amazon. All they have to do is use a defense that does not rely on denying copyrightability of APIs or on fair use. And that's what they are doing by referring to the SDK license.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

floodyberry- 7y ago

I believe you meant to say that yes, it is contradictory, and both Oracle and their lawyers don't care about what is right, just what they can get away with

MrSourz 7y ago
That derives from the system they’re operating in though. In a capitalist society the notion that unless compelled by government intervention people and corporations will act in their own self interest is exactly what I’d expect. If a company is filling a role and 2 similar applicants get matching offers and one accepts the first and the other negotiates I wouldn’t expect the company to go back to the first person and offer him more to bring them to parity.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

But shouldn't Oracle be concerned about this from the perspective of overall business strategy? Oracle's case with Google will likely set precedent. If the side they're arguing for is going to hurt another side of their business by removing their legal argument, why are they fighting?

gpm 7y ago
Oracle's case with Google is for billions of dollars, it's unlikely to hurt the rest of their business to the same tune.