4 ms·

> 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.

by gwd 6y ago

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".
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    There were a number of Java standard library incompatibilities that various libraries have had to adapt to, until they switched the library implementation to OpenJDK.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  Interoperability is not limited to executable-interop: it includes developer knowledge, libraries and tooling - which are exactly the reasons Google chose to use Java (the language). Dalvik checked all those boxes, without being bytecode-compatible with the JVM

> 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.

by 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".
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  There were a number of Java standard library incompatibilities that various libraries have had to adapt to, until they switched the library implementation to OpenJDK.
sangnoir 6y ago
Interoperability is not limited to executable-interop: it includes developer knowledge, libraries and tooling - which are exactly the reasons Google chose to use Java (the language). Dalvik checked all those boxes, without being bytecode-compatible with the JVM