7 ms·

The lack of commercial purpose of ReactOS (and Wine) and it's primary goal of interoperability, plus the fact that it doesn't really damage the value of the ori

The lack of commercial purpose of ReactOS (and Wine) and it's primary goal of interoperability, plus the fact that it doesn't really damage the value of the original Windows platform, means it's probably a very easy case of fair use. Android isn't fair use, is a massive commercial endeavour, and has obliterated the value of mobile Java, while breaking interoperability with Java. Oracle winning the case will not be kind to stolen platforms by tech giants.

zerocrates 6y ago
Do you really think there'd still be a place for mobile Java now in the absence of Android? Seems pretty unlikely to me.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  The state of the market today isn't the point: It obliterated mobile Java when Google infringed. Your question actually reinforces Oracle's claim that they were irreparably harmed by Google's infringement; there's no way to undo what has been done, and substantial damage compensation is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors is a really good read for the basic understanding of how fair use should be applied. Factor four is what we're discussing here, which the Supreme Court labeled the "most important" factor.
  - croes 6y ago
    You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. It's like claiming you copied a book if the chapter headlines are identical.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      > You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. This is true. However, bear in mind, Google argued that 1. APIs weren't copyrightable and 2. that if they were, their usage was fair. In this ten year court nightmare, they've lost fair use and of course, are likely about to lose on copyrightability. If the Supreme Court rules for Oracle, Android is copyright-infringing, it's already failed on the fair use claim. But most non-commercial projects would still have a fairly compelling case for fair use. Note that your "copied a book" analogy is poor for a bunch of reasons: Chapter headlines... are copyrightable. (Though the "amount of work copied" is a fair use pillar, so it's possible to lift chapter headlines fairly.) And it fails to account for the functional nature of APIs which is under debate for copyrightability.
      - croes 6y ago
        That just shows how wrong the whole system is. API and chapter headlines seldom reach a high threshold of originality.
      - pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
        > If the Supreme Court rules for Oracle, Android is copyright-infringing You mean was copyright-infringing. Harmony was dropped years ago, and Android has been rebased onto Oracle's own anointed, conflict-free codebase. And you dodged the previous question where the commenter was asking for an honest assessment of mobile Java. You responded to a question that wasn't answered by talking about being unable to undo the past—which only makes sense if they had been pressing you for an answer to what would happen if Google called it a wrap on Android today, but that wasn't the question. Which brings us to another thing. People who complain about Google's use of the Java APIs can't seem to get their arguments straight. That includes Gosling + the subset of the Sun/Oracle fan club who sat on the stand during trial + and the perennial commenters who parrot the same talking points on Hacker News. They (you) all complain about Android ripping off Java (to the tune of a multi-billion dollar copyright infringement lawsuit), but invariably the argument comes around to the real thing that's bothering them and which they try to wrap up in a bunch of claims about infringement—and what's actually got everyone (besides the money grubbers) fuming is the intentional incompatibility—in other words, that Android didn't copy enough! You wanna try squaring that circle? Which brings us to another another thing. Android today is now based on the "proper" codebase, as mentioned above. How? Because it's open source. And it's been open source the whole time. It uses a different open source license, but it's open source nonetheless. Which means no one actually ever needed to get Sun or Oracle's permission to do anything. All the incompatibilities of Android? There's nothing that keeps the same breaking changes from being made in our hypothetical world where Android used the blessed license instead of the one from their preferred implementation. That difference does not suddenly force the hand of Google—or anyone—to keep dragging around Oracle/Sun's failed attempt at a mobile platform and maintaining compatibility with it.* It's GPL. Modifications are allowed. So reset from the beginning, bypass the Harmony detour, and everything still plays out exactly the same. Sun's platform still starts off where it was the whole time, in the gutter, and in that vacuum, Android becomes a thing, with incompatible APIs and all. And Oracle's infringement angle now disappears completely. Even if you're deluded enough to tell yourself that the platform Sun cooked up had a real shot (it didn't) before Google "obliterated" them, the market looks the same as it does today in favor of Android. So how much of those imaginary losses are actually the result of any infringement? I'll fill in the blank: the answer is none. * Which is another thing...
  - postalrat 6y ago
    Like you said fair use applies to copyrights. The question in the google case is if the API can actually be copywritten. Assuming google did a perfect cleanroom implementation of parts of Java and they lose this case then it can be assumed that cleanroom implementations offer no protection against copyright claims. A lot of non-commercial projects get shot down by companies for copyright infringements. Being non-commercial won't protect you either.
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    There would be no Java on smartphone with Windows Phone and Apple. Java ME was not much even before Android, Symbian overshadowed it. Mobile developers were predisposed "What? Java? Ah, Java SE, maybe ok then"
  - zerocrates 6y ago
    I don't mean "if you take away Android today would Java succeed on mobile?", I mean "if you retrospectively imagine Android never existed at all (or used a different language), how does Java do?" My position is that it doesn't really change things all that much, with losses by Android probably mostly picked up by Apple or Symbian or webOS or Windows Phone but the trajectory to smartphones and away from J2ME stuff largely the same. The sense of how much Android actually "mattered" in this sense goes right to the "effect on the market" prong. As for the broader case, both the copyrightability and fair use claims have been presented to the Supreme Court here. The temptation from the outside looking in is to think/hope/dread that the court will just resolve these questions once and for all, but they often prefer to resolve cases on narrower grounds, where available. Google spent a lot of time arguing for, and would be perfectly fine with, a simple remand based on the Federal Circuit's standard of review of the jury's fair use verdict.
blendergeek 6y ago
> The lack of commercial purpose of ReactOS (and Wine) and it's primary goal of interoperability So, if ReactOS ever becomes useful, it will be illegal to use it for commercial purposes?
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Not necessarily. It might be problematic for ReactOS to try to market their software commercially, but not for someone downloading it to use it commercially. (The latter of which is governed solely by ReactOS' own license, which takes no issue with that.) The first thing to understand about fair use is that it applies to copyright infringement, so first, someone has to complain about the infringement and then you utilize fair use as a defense. And second, that fair use has some guidelines/rules to test whether or not fair use should apply, but they are open to some interpretation. So it wouldn't be "illegal" to commercialize ReactOS... but it'd probably make it a lot harder for ReactOS to use fair use as a shield going forward, because it would weaken their case on one of the pillars of the fair use test.
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    Reverse engineering for interoperability is protected with no routes to contest if done with a clean room reimplementation. If you physically own the item and are using it you are even more protected (think fixing your own tractor). Unfortunately I think some lower courts have some messed up decisions or companies are trying to bully others with threats of suit. For example, some medical coding systems have copyrighted codes that are claimed to require a license and you can not install a system to cooperate with these. Except... this has already been decided, and you can.
croes 6y ago
Oracle will enforce a ruling in their favor globally, but fair use doesn't exist globally. Also it will make API patentable, and that's a very bad thing. Just think of OpenOffice und MySQL vs. LibreOffice and MariaDB. Oracle killed Java and now they still want money. Next step compatibility to the JVM is a copyright violation.
- koolba 6y ago
  > Also it will make API patentable That's not true though the reality is even worse. Patents have a limited term of 20 years. If they win this case it is based on copyright law which has significantly longer terms. Currently that's valid until 70 years after the death of the content creator.
  - projektfu 6y ago
    95 years from publication for a work for hire.
est31 6y ago
One could also claim the opposite: Android has massively boosted the Java ecosystem and given it new life. So many people are learning Oracle's language now thanks to Android.
bonzini 6y ago
Wine does have a commercial purpose.
onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
Oracle purchased Java (and MySQL) 2 years after Google made Android a huge success, specifically for litigation purposes. It's not like Oracle designed Java, and then Google stole it. Java was supposed to be open. It was designed for this intent. Oracle bought it to destroy everything Java was supposed to be, and to prey on anyone who used Java for what it was designed to do. When you can no longer innovate, you litigate.
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  Oracle has never been “innovative” they just know how to generate revenue. That’s demonstrably more important to stay alive in tech.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
Being able to run the Windows platform for free obviously damages the value of the Windows platform for Microsoft.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Nothing to worry about for the foreseeable future.

zerocrates 6y ago

Do you really think there'd still be a place for mobile Java now in the absence of Android? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The state of the market today isn't the point: It obliterated mobile Java when Google infringed. Your question actually reinforces Oracle's claim that they were irreparably harmed by Google's infringement; there's no way to undo what has been done, and substantial damage compensation is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors is a really good read for the basic understanding of how fair use should be applied. Factor four is what we're discussing here, which the Supreme Court labeled the "most important" factor.
- croes 6y ago
  You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. It's like claiming you copied a book if the chapter headlines are identical.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    > You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. This is true. However, bear in mind, Google argued that 1. APIs weren't copyrightable and 2. that if they were, their usage was fair. In this ten year court nightmare, they've lost fair use and of course, are likely about to lose on copyrightability. If the Supreme Court rules for Oracle, Android is copyright-infringing, it's already failed on the fair use claim. But most non-commercial projects would still have a fairly compelling case for fair use. Note that your "copied a book" analogy is poor for a bunch of reasons: Chapter headlines... are copyrightable. (Though the "amount of work copied" is a fair use pillar, so it's possible to lift chapter headlines fairly.) And it fails to account for the functional nature of APIs which is under debate for copyrightability.
    - croes 6y ago
      That just shows how wrong the whole system is. API and chapter headlines seldom reach a high threshold of originality.
    - pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
      > If the Supreme Court rules for Oracle, Android is copyright-infringing You mean was copyright-infringing. Harmony was dropped years ago, and Android has been rebased onto Oracle's own anointed, conflict-free codebase. And you dodged the previous question where the commenter was asking for an honest assessment of mobile Java. You responded to a question that wasn't answered by talking about being unable to undo the past—which only makes sense if they had been pressing you for an answer to what would happen if Google called it a wrap on Android today, but that wasn't the question. Which brings us to another thing. People who complain about Google's use of the Java APIs can't seem to get their arguments straight. That includes Gosling + the subset of the Sun/Oracle fan club who sat on the stand during trial + and the perennial commenters who parrot the same talking points on Hacker News. They (you) all complain about Android ripping off Java (to the tune of a multi-billion dollar copyright infringement lawsuit), but invariably the argument comes around to the real thing that's bothering them and which they try to wrap up in a bunch of claims about infringement—and what's actually got everyone (besides the money grubbers) fuming is the intentional incompatibility—in other words, that Android didn't copy enough! You wanna try squaring that circle? Which brings us to another another thing. Android today is now based on the "proper" codebase, as mentioned above. How? Because it's open source. And it's been open source the whole time. It uses a different open source license, but it's open source nonetheless. Which means no one actually ever needed to get Sun or Oracle's permission to do anything. All the incompatibilities of Android? There's nothing that keeps the same breaking changes from being made in our hypothetical world where Android used the blessed license instead of the one from their preferred implementation. That difference does not suddenly force the hand of Google—or anyone—to keep dragging around Oracle/Sun's failed attempt at a mobile platform and maintaining compatibility with it.* It's GPL. Modifications are allowed. So reset from the beginning, bypass the Harmony detour, and everything still plays out exactly the same. Sun's platform still starts off where it was the whole time, in the gutter, and in that vacuum, Android becomes a thing, with incompatible APIs and all. And Oracle's infringement angle now disappears completely. Even if you're deluded enough to tell yourself that the platform Sun cooked up had a real shot (it didn't) before Google "obliterated" them, the market looks the same as it does today in favor of Android. So how much of those imaginary losses are actually the result of any infringement? I'll fill in the blank: the answer is none. * Which is another thing...
- postalrat 6y ago
  Like you said fair use applies to copyrights. The question in the google case is if the API can actually be copywritten. Assuming google did a perfect cleanroom implementation of parts of Java and they lose this case then it can be assumed that cleanroom implementations offer no protection against copyright claims. A lot of non-commercial projects get shot down by companies for copyright infringements. Being non-commercial won't protect you either.
- sergeykish 6y ago
  There would be no Java on smartphone with Windows Phone and Apple. Java ME was not much even before Android, Symbian overshadowed it. Mobile developers were predisposed "What? Java? Ah, Java SE, maybe ok then"
- zerocrates 6y ago
  I don't mean "if you take away Android today would Java succeed on mobile?", I mean "if you retrospectively imagine Android never existed at all (or used a different language), how does Java do?" My position is that it doesn't really change things all that much, with losses by Android probably mostly picked up by Apple or Symbian or webOS or Windows Phone but the trajectory to smartphones and away from J2ME stuff largely the same. The sense of how much Android actually "mattered" in this sense goes right to the "effect on the market" prong. As for the broader case, both the copyrightability and fair use claims have been presented to the Supreme Court here. The temptation from the outside looking in is to think/hope/dread that the court will just resolve these questions once and for all, but they often prefer to resolve cases on narrower grounds, where available. Google spent a lot of time arguing for, and would be perfectly fine with, a simple remand based on the Federal Circuit's standard of review of the jury's fair use verdict.

blendergeek 6y ago

> The lack of commercial purpose of ReactOS (and Wine) and it's primary goal of interoperability So, if ReactOS ever becomes useful, it will be illegal to use it for commercial purposes?

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Not necessarily. It might be problematic for ReactOS to try to market their software commercially, but not for someone downloading it to use it commercially. (The latter of which is governed solely by ReactOS' own license, which takes no issue with that.) The first thing to understand about fair use is that it applies to copyright infringement, so first, someone has to complain about the infringement and then you utilize fair use as a defense. And second, that fair use has some guidelines/rules to test whether or not fair use should apply, but they are open to some interpretation. So it wouldn't be "illegal" to commercialize ReactOS... but it'd probably make it a lot harder for ReactOS to use fair use as a shield going forward, because it would weaken their case on one of the pillars of the fair use test.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  Reverse engineering for interoperability is protected with no routes to contest if done with a clean room reimplementation. If you physically own the item and are using it you are even more protected (think fixing your own tractor). Unfortunately I think some lower courts have some messed up decisions or companies are trying to bully others with threats of suit. For example, some medical coding systems have copyrighted codes that are claimed to require a license and you can not install a system to cooperate with these. Except... this has already been decided, and you can.

croes 6y ago

Oracle will enforce a ruling in their favor globally, but fair use doesn't exist globally. Also it will make API patentable, and that's a very bad thing. Just think of OpenOffice und MySQL vs. LibreOffice and MariaDB. Oracle killed Java and now they still want money. Next step compatibility to the JVM is a copyright violation.

koolba 6y ago
> Also it will make API patentable That's not true though the reality is even worse. Patents have a limited term of 20 years. If they win this case it is based on copyright law which has significantly longer terms. Currently that's valid until 70 years after the death of the content creator.
- projektfu 6y ago
  95 years from publication for a work for hire.

est31 6y ago

One could also claim the opposite: Android has massively boosted the Java ecosystem and given it new life. So many people are learning Oracle's language now thanks to Android.

bonzini 6y ago

Wine does have a commercial purpose.

onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago

Oracle purchased Java (and MySQL) 2 years after Google made Android a huge success, specifically for litigation purposes. It's not like Oracle designed Java, and then Google stole it. Java was supposed to be open. It was designed for this intent. Oracle bought it to destroy everything Java was supposed to be, and to prey on anyone who used Java for what it was designed to do. When you can no longer innovate, you litigate.

gogopuppygogo 6y ago
Oracle has never been “innovative” they just know how to generate revenue. That’s demonstrably more important to stay alive in tech.

lern_too_spel 6y ago

Being able to run the Windows platform for free obviously damages the value of the Windows platform for Microsoft.

mixmastamyk 6y ago
Nothing to worry about for the foreseeable future.