3 ms·

1. That would probably be considered fair use. 2. The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably d

1. That would probably be considered fair use. 2. The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably dwarf most financial prospects from any API reimplementations that might be at risk.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> That would probably be considered fair use. Because APIs have never before been considered copyrightable, unless Google wins on fair use in this case, we will have exactly zero on-point case law as to when an API reimplementation is fair use. Speculating on what would be considered fair use in API re-implementations in that case would be extremely speculative. > The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably dwarf most financial prospects from any API reimplementations that might be at risk. Maybe more than existing ones, but is it worth more than the entire strategy of using API reimplementation to stay in the game against Amazon, who is far and away ahead in cloud? Is losing that worth a parasitic claim on Android until Google replaces it with something not subject to that claim?
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Google already switched Android over to OpenJDK in 2016, which they have an absolutely ironclad right to use without paying for. If Oracle does end up winning the payout will be for the period of 2008-2016 when Google was using their own home brewed Java implementation.
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    Unless this ruling becomes applicable to the Java bytecode format, in which case they can go after Dalvik and ART (the latter of which is still in use).
ihatethissite 6y ago
How do you figure that it would be considered fair use in one case but not the other?
gwd 6y ago
> That would probably be considered fair use. Why would that be considered fair use, and Google's not be? As far as I can tell it's exactly the same situation.
- warkdarrior 6y ago
  Because Oracle implemented the S3 API in order to be compatible with Amazon, while Google didn't implement the Java API in order for Android apps to be compatible with server-side Java code.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Both reimplement for compatibility at some level in the toolchain, why fair use analysis would privilege one level of interoperability over another is purely speculative; arguably, the kind of user-interoperability Oracle does is more of an assault on the market for what is reimplemented (that's the whole purpose of Oracle doing it) than what Google is doing, and that's a factor that weighs against fair use. It is important to realize that since APIs have never been viewed as copyrightable previously, we also, if Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, will have zero case law that is directly on point for any API reimplementation being fair use. Speculating on the law that will develop in that area is fun, but almost by definition not strongly grounded.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Google wasn't interested in interoperability. A big part of why they allegedly walked away from Java licensing was Oracle wanted Android to actually run Java apps, and Google wanted to basically fork off, but just benefit from the developer community around the Java language.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    Can't you use many Java libraries on Android? Interoperable doesn't mean "exactly the same".
    - 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> That would probably be considered fair use. Because APIs have never before been considered copyrightable, unless Google wins on fair use in this case, we will have exactly zero on-point case law as to when an API reimplementation is fair use. Speculating on what would be considered fair use in API re-implementations in that case would be extremely speculative. > The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably dwarf most financial prospects from any API reimplementations that might be at risk. Maybe more than existing ones, but is it worth more than the entire strategy of using API reimplementation to stay in the game against Amazon, who is far and away ahead in cloud? Is losing that worth a parasitic claim on Android until Google replaces it with something not subject to that claim?

dodobirdlord 6y ago
Google already switched Android over to OpenJDK in 2016, which they have an absolutely ironclad right to use without paying for. If Oracle does end up winning the payout will be for the period of 2008-2016 when Google was using their own home brewed Java implementation.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  Unless this ruling becomes applicable to the Java bytecode format, in which case they can go after Dalvik and ART (the latter of which is still in use).

ihatethissite 6y ago

How do you figure that it would be considered fair use in one case but not the other?

gwd 6y ago

> That would probably be considered fair use. Why would that be considered fair use, and Google's not be? As far as I can tell it's exactly the same situation.

warkdarrior 6y ago
Because Oracle implemented the S3 API in order to be compatible with Amazon, while Google didn't implement the Java API in order for Android apps to be compatible with server-side Java code.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Both reimplement for compatibility at some level in the toolchain, why fair use analysis would privilege one level of interoperability over another is purely speculative; arguably, the kind of user-interoperability Oracle does is more of an assault on the market for what is reimplemented (that's the whole purpose of Oracle doing it) than what Google is doing, and that's a factor that weighs against fair use. It is important to realize that since APIs have never been viewed as copyrightable previously, we also, if Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, will have zero case law that is directly on point for any API reimplementation being fair use. Speculating on the law that will develop in that area is fun, but almost by definition not strongly grounded.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Google wasn't interested in interoperability. A big part of why they allegedly walked away from Java licensing was Oracle wanted Android to actually run Java apps, and Google wanted to basically fork off, but just benefit from the developer community around the Java language.
- zucker42 6y ago
  Can't you use many Java libraries on Android? Interoperable doesn't mean "exactly the same".
  - 6y ago