4 ms·

Curious to hear from others more knowledgeable than I: did Oracle's case have _any_ merits here? Are there implications about this decision that could be worris

Curious to hear from others more knowledgeable than I: did Oracle's case have _any_ merits here? Are there implications about this decision that could be worrisome? HN threads tend to portray this a bit as "beating an evil cash grab," which may be the case...but I don't know enough about both sides to make that judgement myself.

cogman10 6y ago
The amount of code google copied was a bit much. The SC didn't rule that this wasn't a copyright violation but instead that "this qualifies as fair use" which means that it doesn't really resolve anything and leaves this sort of an issue open for future litigation. That said, the down side of this is the old MS "embrace, extend, extinguish" approach is up for grabs by a large company. There isn't much stopping someone from making "not java" and breaking it in subtle ways (Imagine, for example, if android's dalvik/art became a common runtime for Java apps. Or more realistically, what microsoft did with Java back in the sun days). The good thing is that for now, just implementing interfaces likely is just fair use. The bad thing is you are allow to implement a LOT of interfaces before the copyright question comes up again.
ghaff 6y ago
Basically read Thomas' dissent. 1.) The Court skirted the issue of whether APIs are copyrightable. If they were, it would be bad, but it's unclear if they aren't copyrightable as a matter of the law as written. 2.) The majority held on the basis of fair use and, as Thomas argues, that's arguably a stretch--and certainly a very fact-dependent one.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I think Oracle's case was incredibly full of merit, and an incredible PR campaign was run by Google to ensure nobody believed it. The idea that the whole of the software industry was under threat if Google wasn't able to wholesale violate Oracle's license terms for Java is absolutely laughable, but it's nearly a commonly held belief in the industry, propped up largely by organizations Google's Public Policy team has donated large sums to. Bear in mind, Google's internal correspondence covered knowing they needed to license Java, negotiating terms to license Java, and then when they didn't want to comply with Oracle's terms (which were literally: interoperability, because they wanted Android to run standard cross-platform Java apps), they chose to steal what they wanted instead. Andy Rubin (of "Larry Page gave me $90 million after I sexually harassed subordinates" fame) had a major bonus tied to launching Android on time, and just taking what he needed was the solution. Also, if Android had been GPL-licensed, they could've built on OpenJDK from the get-go legitimately, but again, stealing was preferable in Google's case to obeying license terms, because they wanted to appeal to manufacturer's pushing proprietary code. Oracle is not a hero, but Google was fighting against interoperability and open source licensing the entire way, and bought their way into public opinion.
- realusername 6y ago
  > propped up largely by organizations Google's Public Policy team has donated large sums to. Or just believed by developers who know what they are talking about you know... Nobody's really siding with Oracle in the industry because their case did not make much sense. > they chose to steal what they wanted instead They reimplemented everything you mean, there's no Oracle source code at all in Android and there's not even a JVM.
- NobodyNada 6y ago
  > The idea that the whole of the software industry was under threat if Google wasn't able to wholesale violate Oracle's license terms for Java is absolutely laughable Why is that? How is what Google did any different than what Stallman and Torvalds did when they created free reimplementations of the Unix API, or how the Wine and ReactOS projects reimplement the Windows API? The way I see it, the ability for us to write a drop-in-compatible replacement for proprietary software is a critically important right that allows us to defeat vendor lock-in, and it has fueled the growth of the software industry for decades.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL, the OpenJDK. The entire reason Google needed to rip off Java was so that they could Apache license Android. Also, Android wasn't a drop-in-compatible replacement. If it was, it might have a case, but the whole breakdown between Google and Oracle in negotiating was that Oracle had insisted on interoperability, and Google wanted to break compatibility. This is why the idea that the Supreme Court ruled on fair use is so freaking laughable, everything Google was trying to do was an antithesis to fair use, interoperability, and open source.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL, the OpenJDK. The initiative that led to OpenJDK started in 2006 with the release of the JDK (IIRC, minus some components Sun lacked rights to) in 2007. Android development started in 2003, with the first beta in 2007. OpenJDK wasn’t, in any meaningful sense, available for the development of Android.
rblatz 6y ago
I think it’s really interesting. On one hand interoperability is huge and the code copied didn’t actually do anything. On the other hand the most important part of an api is its design and that’s where a lot of thought, skill, and experience is needed.

cogman10 6y ago

The amount of code google copied was a bit much. The SC didn't rule that this wasn't a copyright violation but instead that "this qualifies as fair use" which means that it doesn't really resolve anything and leaves this sort of an issue open for future litigation. That said, the down side of this is the old MS "embrace, extend, extinguish" approach is up for grabs by a large company. There isn't much stopping someone from making "not java" and breaking it in subtle ways (Imagine, for example, if android's dalvik/art became a common runtime for Java apps. Or more realistically, what microsoft did with Java back in the sun days). The good thing is that for now, just implementing interfaces likely is just fair use. The bad thing is you are allow to implement a LOT of interfaces before the copyright question comes up again.

ghaff 6y ago

Basically read Thomas' dissent. 1.) The Court skirted the issue of whether APIs are copyrightable. If they were, it would be bad, but it's unclear if they aren't copyrightable as a matter of the law as written. 2.) The majority held on the basis of fair use and, as Thomas argues, that's arguably a stretch--and certainly a very fact-dependent one.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

I think Oracle's case was incredibly full of merit, and an incredible PR campaign was run by Google to ensure nobody believed it. The idea that the whole of the software industry was under threat if Google wasn't able to wholesale violate Oracle's license terms for Java is absolutely laughable, but it's nearly a commonly held belief in the industry, propped up largely by organizations Google's Public Policy team has donated large sums to. Bear in mind, Google's internal correspondence covered knowing they needed to license Java, negotiating terms to license Java, and then when they didn't want to comply with Oracle's terms (which were literally: interoperability, because they wanted Android to run standard cross-platform Java apps), they chose to steal what they wanted instead. Andy Rubin (of "Larry Page gave me $90 million after I sexually harassed subordinates" fame) had a major bonus tied to launching Android on time, and just taking what he needed was the solution. Also, if Android had been GPL-licensed, they could've built on OpenJDK from the get-go legitimately, but again, stealing was preferable in Google's case to obeying license terms, because they wanted to appeal to manufacturer's pushing proprietary code. Oracle is not a hero, but Google was fighting against interoperability and open source licensing the entire way, and bought their way into public opinion.

realusername 6y ago
> propped up largely by organizations Google's Public Policy team has donated large sums to. Or just believed by developers who know what they are talking about you know... Nobody's really siding with Oracle in the industry because their case did not make much sense. > they chose to steal what they wanted instead They reimplemented everything you mean, there's no Oracle source code at all in Android and there's not even a JVM.
NobodyNada 6y ago
> The idea that the whole of the software industry was under threat if Google wasn't able to wholesale violate Oracle's license terms for Java is absolutely laughable Why is that? How is what Google did any different than what Stallman and Torvalds did when they created free reimplementations of the Unix API, or how the Wine and ReactOS projects reimplement the Windows API? The way I see it, the ability for us to write a drop-in-compatible replacement for proprietary software is a critically important right that allows us to defeat vendor lock-in, and it has fueled the growth of the software industry for decades.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL, the OpenJDK. The entire reason Google needed to rip off Java was so that they could Apache license Android. Also, Android wasn't a drop-in-compatible replacement. If it was, it might have a case, but the whole breakdown between Google and Oracle in negotiating was that Oracle had insisted on interoperability, and Google wanted to break compatibility. This is why the idea that the Supreme Court ruled on fair use is so freaking laughable, everything Google was trying to do was an antithesis to fair use, interoperability, and open source.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL, the OpenJDK. The initiative that led to OpenJDK started in 2006 with the release of the JDK (IIRC, minus some components Sun lacked rights to) in 2007. Android development started in 2003, with the first beta in 2007. OpenJDK wasn’t, in any meaningful sense, available for the development of Android.

rblatz 6y ago

I think it’s really interesting. On one hand interoperability is huge and the code copied didn’t actually do anything. On the other hand the most important part of an api is its design and that’s where a lot of thought, skill, and experience is needed.