4 ms·

The Google lawyer should be fired. I can’t believe you’d put the best of the best in front of the SC and the guy didn’t even sound like he could describe what a

by xoxoy 6y ago

The Google lawyer should be fired. I can’t believe you’d put the best of the best in front of the SC and the guy didn’t even sound like he could describe what an API actually is in non-technical terms. I don’t see how he represented the best legal representation Google could buy.

hugi 6y ago
Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest.
- phendrenad2 6y ago
  4D chess time: Google wants to steal market share from Oracle, and Oracle offered a perfect opportunity by trying to shoot itself in the foot by making Java forks risky (thus ending innovation from the open-source world). I expect Google to invent a new bytecode language that looks and feels like Java, but isn't Java. Oh and it'll come with a promise not to sue if you copy the API, not like that big bad Oracle.
- qaq 6y ago
  was thinking exactly same thing
- pvorb 6y ago
  That would have been an expensive realization, but it sounds like a reasonable explanation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- biztos 6y ago
  If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle? I can't imagine Oracle would have a problem with getting to say they were right, and getting a boatload of cash, without all the bother of the Supreme Court. And doesn't intentional bad representation have weird and costly externalities, like reputation damage for the lawyer? I love the image of Google and Oracle behaving like gangsters, but I'm having trouble imagining it being this sloppy.
  - toast0 6y ago
    A Supreme Court ruling is a lot better than settlement if they've decided they want to pivot to sueing independent implementations of their APIs. I wouldn't find it compelling to follow if Google took the other side of a settlement they were involved in to go and pursue others. Maybe they settled because they figured out they could make more money that way, regardless of the question of law.
    - FartyMcFarter 6y ago
      Interesting! Leaves me wondering, what independent implementations of Google APIs are out there?
      - solarkraft 6y ago
        One of the more important in my opinion is the microG project (https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/), a free re-implementation of Google’s proprietary libraries for Android that many apps on the Play store depend on.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle? Well, it would certainly be much safer not to present such a comprehensive written argumentation and hope that you can somehow sabotage all that (and all the written arguments from friendly amici, etc., by a clumsy presentation at oral argument.) I think "highly successsful Supreme Court lawyer doing his best has a bad day at oral argument, perhaps in part due to the unusual format" is more likely than some kind of "deliberately throw the case by trying to screw up oral argument" thing.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    Google would permanently lose the tech world if they don't appear to fight this battle. Give away the whole concept of API's free of copyright? The reputational damage would be immense and probably spell the beginning of the end for Google. I had the same thought (that Google is intentionally throwing the case) when I read over the Google lawyer's approach, there's no way the guy is that out of touch. The Google of today is not the Google that started this case all those years ago and the Google of today is working alot harder to create its own walled gardens. They have alot more to gain from suing the pants off anyone who tries to interoperate with them, than they stand to lose from a few $billion payoff to Oracle.
- chottocharaii 6y ago
  ??? Dunning-Kruger effect, exemplified in this thread
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Dunning-Kruger effect, exemplified in this thread How does the effect where everyone feels they are slightly closer to about the 70th percentile in performance at a task than they are (and more the farther away from that their actual performance is) have any bearing here? Or do you mean the D-K effect of popular legend where people who are completely incompetent think they are hypercompetent, rather than the actual effect of that name?
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest. That might well be true. However, I'd be more inclined to apply Hanlon's Razor[0] to this, as it's usually closer to the truth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest. Is your speculation that Google had this sudden realization between the filing of the various written arguments (including the standard of review for fair use memo on August 7) after fighting this case for years (all of which they've had a similar position), or do you think their written arguments are consistent with this theory?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
az226 6y ago
He also argued that there was only one way Oracle's Java libraries could have been designed, which is clearly false, and the justices picked up on that.
- xoxoy 6y ago
  really astonishing. wonder what google saw in him. the oracle lawyer was far more prepared and technically cogent.
- cataphract 6y ago
  After a (long) while it became clear it meant "there is only way that we might make the full use of the current pool of Java programmers", which is an odd argument to advance — why would they be entitled to draw from that pool of programmers. I think it would have been more compelling if he had focused on the interoperability with the ecosystem of Java libraries.
  - az226 6y ago
    And the justices picked up on that. I thought they did a good job assessing the case from both ends. At first I thought the justices were against Google and pro Oracle, until I saw them address the Oracle lawyer and it was clear they were asking good questions on both sides.
nojito 6y ago
Giving a lawyer an unwinnable case does not take away from the fact that he is one of the most successful SC lawyers in the world.
- dannyw 6y ago
  This case is not unwinnable. And lawyers can specialise in specific areas. This lawyer seems unprepared at best, and simply not appropriate for this at worst. I'm not saying he's a bad lawyer, I'm saying he's not the right lawyer for this case.
  - nojito 6y ago
    >I'm saying he's not the right lawyer for this case. Feel free to name anyone who has a better record in front of the SC.
cataphract 6y ago
His claim that there is no creativity involved in designing an API is plainly absurd as well, and from the transcript I don't think the justices bought that at all. And I agree with the Justice Department lawyer that the "no other way to do it" argument he pushed at the beginning is circular.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Yes. They have had -years- to come up with a defense and a crack legal team and then this guy shows up. Maybe they wanted to lose?
whatsmyusername 6y ago
Google... really isn't that good at what they do besides sell Ads. They're just big so whatever they choose becomes the standard because 'doing what google does' not only won't generally get you fired but also impresses people who don't actually have to build difficult things. It's a testament to the power of an entrenched market position.
m463 6y ago
How do you know the Google lawyer isn't representing the wishes of his client? A little voice in the back of my head wonders if maybe google's position has changed over the years...
- forkerenok 6y ago
  Hanlon's razor may apply here: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" albeit in a different form.
  - a_imho 6y ago
    I find Hanlon's razor a wishful thinking at best. I do not think there is any evidence backing it up.

by xoxoy 6y ago

hugi 6y ago

Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest.

phendrenad2 6y ago
4D chess time: Google wants to steal market share from Oracle, and Oracle offered a perfect opportunity by trying to shoot itself in the foot by making Java forks risky (thus ending innovation from the open-source world). I expect Google to invent a new bytecode language that looks and feels like Java, but isn't Java. Oh and it'll come with a promise not to sue if you copy the API, not like that big bad Oracle.
qaq 6y ago
was thinking exactly same thing
pvorb 6y ago
That would have been an expensive realization, but it sounds like a reasonable explanation.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
biztos 6y ago
If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle? I can't imagine Oracle would have a problem with getting to say they were right, and getting a boatload of cash, without all the bother of the Supreme Court. And doesn't intentional bad representation have weird and costly externalities, like reputation damage for the lawyer? I love the image of Google and Oracle behaving like gangsters, but I'm having trouble imagining it being this sloppy.
- toast0 6y ago
  A Supreme Court ruling is a lot better than settlement if they've decided they want to pivot to sueing independent implementations of their APIs. I wouldn't find it compelling to follow if Google took the other side of a settlement they were involved in to go and pursue others. Maybe they settled because they figured out they could make more money that way, regardless of the question of law.
  - FartyMcFarter 6y ago
    Interesting! Leaves me wondering, what independent implementations of Google APIs are out there?
    - solarkraft 6y ago
      One of the more important in my opinion is the microG project (https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/), a free re-implementation of Google’s proprietary libraries for Android that many apps on the Play store depend on.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle? Well, it would certainly be much safer not to present such a comprehensive written argumentation and hope that you can somehow sabotage all that (and all the written arguments from friendly amici, etc., by a clumsy presentation at oral argument.) I think "highly successsful Supreme Court lawyer doing his best has a bad day at oral argument, perhaps in part due to the unusual format" is more likely than some kind of "deliberately throw the case by trying to screw up oral argument" thing.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  Google would permanently lose the tech world if they don't appear to fight this battle. Give away the whole concept of API's free of copyright? The reputational damage would be immense and probably spell the beginning of the end for Google. I had the same thought (that Google is intentionally throwing the case) when I read over the Google lawyer's approach, there's no way the guy is that out of touch. The Google of today is not the Google that started this case all those years ago and the Google of today is working alot harder to create its own walled gardens. They have alot more to gain from suing the pants off anyone who tries to interoperate with them, than they stand to lose from a few $billion payoff to Oracle.
chottocharaii 6y ago
??? Dunning-Kruger effect, exemplified in this thread
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Dunning-Kruger effect, exemplified in this thread How does the effect where everyone feels they are slightly closer to about the 70th percentile in performance at a task than they are (and more the farther away from that their actual performance is) have any bearing here? Or do you mean the D-K effect of popular legend where people who are completely incompetent think they are hypercompetent, rather than the actual effect of that name?
nobody9999 6y ago
>Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest. That might well be true. However, I'd be more inclined to apply Hanlon's Razor[0] to this, as it's usually closer to the truth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
dragonwriter 6y ago
> This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest. Is your speculation that Google had this sudden realization between the filing of the various written arguments (including the standard of review for fair use memo on August 7) after fighting this case for years (all of which they've had a similar position), or do you think their written arguments are consistent with this theory?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

az226 6y ago

He also argued that there was only one way Oracle's Java libraries could have been designed, which is clearly false, and the justices picked up on that.

xoxoy 6y ago
really astonishing. wonder what google saw in him. the oracle lawyer was far more prepared and technically cogent.
cataphract 6y ago
After a (long) while it became clear it meant "there is only way that we might make the full use of the current pool of Java programmers", which is an odd argument to advance — why would they be entitled to draw from that pool of programmers. I think it would have been more compelling if he had focused on the interoperability with the ecosystem of Java libraries.
- az226 6y ago
  And the justices picked up on that. I thought they did a good job assessing the case from both ends. At first I thought the justices were against Google and pro Oracle, until I saw them address the Oracle lawyer and it was clear they were asking good questions on both sides.

nojito 6y ago

Giving a lawyer an unwinnable case does not take away from the fact that he is one of the most successful SC lawyers in the world.

dannyw 6y ago
This case is not unwinnable. And lawyers can specialise in specific areas. This lawyer seems unprepared at best, and simply not appropriate for this at worst. I'm not saying he's a bad lawyer, I'm saying he's not the right lawyer for this case.
- nojito 6y ago
  >I'm saying he's not the right lawyer for this case. Feel free to name anyone who has a better record in front of the SC.

cataphract 6y ago

His claim that there is no creativity involved in designing an API is plainly absurd as well, and from the transcript I don't think the justices bought that at all. And I agree with the Justice Department lawyer that the "no other way to do it" argument he pushed at the beginning is circular.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Yes. They have had -years- to come up with a defense and a crack legal team and then this guy shows up. Maybe they wanted to lose?

whatsmyusername 6y ago

Google... really isn't that good at what they do besides sell Ads. They're just big so whatever they choose becomes the standard because 'doing what google does' not only won't generally get you fired but also impresses people who don't actually have to build difficult things. It's a testament to the power of an entrenched market position.

m463 6y ago

How do you know the Google lawyer isn't representing the wishes of his client? A little voice in the back of my head wonders if maybe google's position has changed over the years...

forkerenok 6y ago
Hanlon's razor may apply here: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" albeit in a different form.
- a_imho 6y ago
  I find Hanlon's razor a wishful thinking at best. I do not think there is any evidence backing it up.