5 ms·

If we take the law as it is, i think Oracle should win. This is very interesting because it covers the copyright on the API and not software patents. I think

by amalag 15y ago

If we take the law as it is, i think Oracle should win. This is very interesting because it covers the copyright on the API and not software patents. I think this is a legitimate and winning case for Oracle. What were Sun/Oracle's conditions that Google could not do for licensing?

Symmetry 15y ago
I can certainly see how you could argue that the APIs should be covered by copyright, but I'm not sure how you could say that invoking them in your code is ok but that implementing them isn't - at least baring specific language in some contract the user signed.
- amalag 15y ago
  I can see that argument if you consider the API design to be a significant intellectual contribution which Oracle can prove considering the popularity of Java and it's ecosystem.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    I'm not sure I see what you mean there. If the API design is a significant intellectual contribution, and I'm inclined to say it is, that would be that the API is copyrighted. But that would mean that the API is copyrighted, not that its copyrighted for some purposes and not for others. Oracle seems to be saying that the API is only copyrighted for the purposes of implementing them, not invoking them, and I can't see what basis they're using to make that distinction. There may be something I'm missing, though.
  - wmf 15y ago
    I think that argues more for patentability of APIs, though.
- vilhelm_s 15y ago
  One of Oracle's slides quotes the licence statement in the Java Specification (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-0-legal.html http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-0-legal...). It states that you are allowed to use it for developing applications, but not for developing "non-compliant" implementations. So I guess their position is that Google's implementation is an infringing copy of part of the specification (namely the type signatures).
  - VikingCoder 15y ago
    I could have a line in my license statement for my book that it's legal for you to buy my book, but not loan it to a friend. That doesn't mean that any court would find fault with you, if you bought my book and then loaned it to a friend. That's totally fair use. Just an analogy to show that just because a company tries to make you believe they have the right to limit what you can legally do, doesn't mean you are legally limited.
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      As long as the book in question isn't an ebook, sadly. In that case, the book is licensed, not sold, and the license agreement has teeth.
      - VikingCoder 15y ago
        ...so I loan you my whole Kindle. :)
0xABADC0DA 15y ago
Finally got around to reading the slides from both sides... wow Google slides are so weak. Their four points: - Sun gave Java language to the public They basically just say APIs and programming languages are the same thing, and Ellison said the programming language is free for everybody, therefore the APIs are too. Their quoting an expert saying that an API is like a technical paper is bizarre, since technical papers are clearly copyrightable... Google basically agreed (slide 12) that an API is copyrightable. - Google built Android using free and open technologies Basically saying other people did it and Sun didn't sue, so it's ok for us to do it. Also another defense that, ok maybe they did what Oracle claims, but even so it's no big deal. The 'me too' and 'meh' defenses. - Sun publicly approved Android's use of Java The defense is that Sun approved the announcement of Android as a Java-based platform, which Google says it isn't. So Sun didn't approve of Android. - Google made fair use of the Java language APIs in Android The defense is that Sun was incompetent so Google had the right to go it alone without Sun's approval or license. Seriously?! Their quote to support this from Ellison even talks about licensing Java to phone carriers -- why would they do this if Java was free? Their own evidence presented undermines their argument. Meanwhile the Oracle presentation is chock full of damning quotes and evidence from Google's own people. Google better have some serious kung-fu in the trial part, because the opening statements are a disaster for them.
- GauntletWizard 15y ago
  Alright; you're now allowed to read and write English, but you can't use any of the words in the Oxford English Dictionary, as they are a copyrighted API.
  - 0xABADC0DA 15y ago
    I know that you can't copy the OED as a whole, or in significant parts. You have to purchase it. Similarly, you could copy and use parts of the Java API in your programs but not the whole API. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if Google's case is solid legally, but putting myself as a juror the Oracle opening statement I think would be very convincing compared to Google's. But my reading of the slides is probably colored though by my personal opinion that the Java API should be copyrightable. It's a substantial creative work and no two people would create the same APIs even containing the same ideas and concepts (.NET for example).
fpgeek 15y ago
Your description of "the law as it is", would be surprising to Microsoft (CP/M), Compaq (BIOS), Oracle (SQL), Sun (Windows (via Wabi)) and those are just some of the more prominent/embarrassing (for Oracle) examples I can think of.

by amalag 15y ago

Symmetry 15y ago

I can certainly see how you could argue that the APIs should be covered by copyright, but I'm not sure how you could say that invoking them in your code is ok but that implementing them isn't - at least baring specific language in some contract the user signed.

amalag 15y ago
I can see that argument if you consider the API design to be a significant intellectual contribution which Oracle can prove considering the popularity of Java and it's ecosystem.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  I'm not sure I see what you mean there. If the API design is a significant intellectual contribution, and I'm inclined to say it is, that would be that the API is copyrighted. But that would mean that the API is copyrighted, not that its copyrighted for some purposes and not for others. Oracle seems to be saying that the API is only copyrighted for the purposes of implementing them, not invoking them, and I can't see what basis they're using to make that distinction. There may be something I'm missing, though.
- wmf 15y ago
  I think that argues more for patentability of APIs, though.
vilhelm_s 15y ago
One of Oracle's slides quotes the licence statement in the Java Specification (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-0-legal.html http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-0-legal...). It states that you are allowed to use it for developing applications, but not for developing "non-compliant" implementations. So I guess their position is that Google's implementation is an infringing copy of part of the specification (namely the type signatures).
- VikingCoder 15y ago
  I could have a line in my license statement for my book that it's legal for you to buy my book, but not loan it to a friend. That doesn't mean that any court would find fault with you, if you bought my book and then loaned it to a friend. That's totally fair use. Just an analogy to show that just because a company tries to make you believe they have the right to limit what you can legally do, doesn't mean you are legally limited.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    As long as the book in question isn't an ebook, sadly. In that case, the book is licensed, not sold, and the license agreement has teeth.
    - VikingCoder 15y ago
      ...so I loan you my whole Kindle. :)

0xABADC0DA 15y ago

Finally got around to reading the slides from both sides... wow Google slides are so weak. Their four points: - Sun gave Java language to the public They basically just say APIs and programming languages are the same thing, and Ellison said the programming language is free for everybody, therefore the APIs are too. Their quoting an expert saying that an API is like a technical paper is bizarre, since technical papers are clearly copyrightable... Google basically agreed (slide 12) that an API is copyrightable. - Google built Android using free and open technologies Basically saying other people did it and Sun didn't sue, so it's ok for us to do it. Also another defense that, ok maybe they did what Oracle claims, but even so it's no big deal. The 'me too' and 'meh' defenses. - Sun publicly approved Android's use of Java The defense is that Sun approved the announcement of Android as a Java-based platform, which Google says it isn't. So Sun didn't approve of Android. - Google made fair use of the Java language APIs in Android The defense is that Sun was incompetent so Google had the right to go it alone without Sun's approval or license. Seriously?! Their quote to support this from Ellison even talks about licensing Java to phone carriers -- why would they do this if Java was free? Their own evidence presented undermines their argument. Meanwhile the Oracle presentation is chock full of damning quotes and evidence from Google's own people. Google better have some serious kung-fu in the trial part, because the opening statements are a disaster for them.

GauntletWizard 15y ago
Alright; you're now allowed to read and write English, but you can't use any of the words in the Oxford English Dictionary, as they are a copyrighted API.
- 0xABADC0DA 15y ago
  I know that you can't copy the OED as a whole, or in significant parts. You have to purchase it. Similarly, you could copy and use parts of the Java API in your programs but not the whole API. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if Google's case is solid legally, but putting myself as a juror the Oracle opening statement I think would be very convincing compared to Google's. But my reading of the slides is probably colored though by my personal opinion that the Java API should be copyrightable. It's a substantial creative work and no two people would create the same APIs even containing the same ideas and concepts (.NET for example).

fpgeek 15y ago

Your description of "the law as it is", would be surprising to Microsoft (CP/M), Compaq (BIOS), Oracle (SQL), Sun (Windows (via Wabi)) and those are just some of the more prominent/embarrassing (for Oracle) examples I can think of.