3 ms·

Supreme Court seek Obama administration views on Google-Oracle dispute

6 points by drallison 12y ago

drallison 12y ago
This dispute centers upon whether APIs can be copyrighted. This case has broad implications for everyone who builds and uses software. See https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google for a bit more background.
Oletros 12y ago
The Supreme Court also seek DoJ views on Google vs Vederi, the Google Street View case that the Appeals court reversed
angdis 12y ago
I fail to see what Oracle gets out of all this aggression other than an interminable legal fight and associated expenses, the scorn of developers everywhere, and a _very_ iffy future pay-off. What is the motivation here?
- debacle 12y ago
  Money. What else would the motivation be? This is Oracle we're talking about.
  - angdis 12y ago
    OK, but they're already making money. And anyway it is far from certain if they will "win" and moreover how much they'll even get out of it. It is less likely to be successful than a "slip-and-fall" scam. Surely, there is more to it?
th0br0 12y ago
Does anybody else find it disturbing that the Supreme Court, which, as the head of the legislative, should be a fully independent entity, defers its decision of whether it should become active to the head of the executive/judicative? So much about the separation of powers...
- DannyBee 12y ago
  ??? It doesn't defer it's decision. It is asking for the views of the solicitor general. The solicitor general has a dual role int he legal system. In one role, as an advocate, he serves the president, and is responsible for deciding which and whether federal cases get appealed to the supreme court, and representing the government in that case. In the other role, the solicitor general is a special officer of the supreme court (he actually has an office in the building), and is often asked for an honest assessment of cases that are not government cases. IE the court wants to know what the solicitor general, as a lawyer who sees a ton of cases before the court, thinks of whether the questions presented and their interplay with federal law, are worth the courts time to hear. Part of the reason is that the solicitor general is much more plugged into the state of the law and upcoming cases around the country than the supreme court (and rightfully so). So he may know "there is a case coming up through the courts of appeals that will be a much better case to test issue X or Y", etc. In the end, he simply makes a recommendation. Sometimes the court accepts the recommendation, sometimes it doesn't.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    >So he may know "there is a case coming up through the courts of appeals that will be a much better case to test issue X or Y", etc. Could this be an admission that the largely senior citizen SCOTUS defers techie stuff to the SG because its so out of their experience? Its interesting to think that we have one court that could decide an issue in any form of human endeavor. From, say, abortion to copywritable APIs. Its kinda scary how much power they ultimately wield and quite a statement about how deeply we're governed and controlled by the state.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Could this be an admission that the largely senior citizen SCOTUS defers techie stuff to the SG because its so out of their experience? No, because the SCOTUS isn't deferring, and often seeks the input of the SG on cases, tech or not, particularly ones involving interpretation of federal law that would impact the role of the executive where the government is not a direct party, or ones that potentially have wide policy implications (regardless if they directly affect the role of the executive branch) where the government is not direct party. This is just a matter of the court wanting to have the issues well briefed before it makes a decision, not specifically an issue related to technology.
tzs 12y ago
I'm confused about how precedent works in this kind of case. Generally, the precedent that a particular court must follow in a case is the rulings of courts that its ruling in the case can be appealed to. So, a California district court has to follow 9th Circuit precedent in a copyright case, because it will be the 9th Circuit appeals court that gets the case on appeal. The California district court does not have to follow, say, 2nd Circuit precedent, because the case will not ever reach the 2nd Circuit appeals court. For a patent case, the path is a little different. All patent appeals go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rather then to the Circuit appeals courts. Thus, a California district court hearing a patent case follows CAFC precedent, because that's where the case will go on appeal. The Oracle-Google case is both copyright and patent. Because of the patent aspect, the appeal from the district court went to the CAFC. Although a copyright appeal would not go to CAFC on its own, CAFC is allowed to handle it when it is part of a patent case. Thus, we end up with the CAFC issuing a copyright ruling. What I do not understand is which courts have to take the CAFC copyright ruling as precedent. Suppose I sue someone over copyright in California, and suppose there are no patent issues anywhere near the case...it's just a pure copyright case. The appeal then will go to the 9th Circuit appeals court, not to CAFC, so does the district court in this case have to follow CAFC's Oracle ruling? Or do they look strictly to what the 9th Circuit has said? Given the theoretical basis for precedent, I'd expect that the district court follows the 9th Circuit. If that's the case, suppose that the defendant would really prefer to operate under CAFC copyright precedent rather than 9th Circuit copyright precedent. Could he try to add a patent counterclaim, so that the appeal would go to CAFC, and so the district court would have to follow CAFC precedent? Would I have a reasonable chance under FRCP Rule 42 to ask for separate trials on the copyright and patent issues?

6 points by drallison 12y ago

This dispute centers upon whether APIs can be copyrighted. This case has broad implications for everyone who builds and uses software. See https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google for a bit more background.

Oletros 12y ago

The Supreme Court also seek DoJ views on Google vs Vederi, the Google Street View case that the Appeals court reversed

angdis 12y ago

I fail to see what Oracle gets out of all this aggression other than an interminable legal fight and associated expenses, the scorn of developers everywhere, and a _very_ iffy future pay-off. What is the motivation here?

debacle 12y ago
Money. What else would the motivation be? This is Oracle we're talking about.
- angdis 12y ago
  OK, but they're already making money. And anyway it is far from certain if they will "win" and moreover how much they'll even get out of it. It is less likely to be successful than a "slip-and-fall" scam. Surely, there is more to it?

th0br0 12y ago

Does anybody else find it disturbing that the Supreme Court, which, as the head of the legislative, should be a fully independent entity, defers its decision of whether it should become active to the head of the executive/judicative? So much about the separation of powers...

DannyBee 12y ago
??? It doesn't defer it's decision. It is asking for the views of the solicitor general. The solicitor general has a dual role int he legal system. In one role, as an advocate, he serves the president, and is responsible for deciding which and whether federal cases get appealed to the supreme court, and representing the government in that case. In the other role, the solicitor general is a special officer of the supreme court (he actually has an office in the building), and is often asked for an honest assessment of cases that are not government cases. IE the court wants to know what the solicitor general, as a lawyer who sees a ton of cases before the court, thinks of whether the questions presented and their interplay with federal law, are worth the courts time to hear. Part of the reason is that the solicitor general is much more plugged into the state of the law and upcoming cases around the country than the supreme court (and rightfully so). So he may know "there is a case coming up through the courts of appeals that will be a much better case to test issue X or Y", etc. In the end, he simply makes a recommendation. Sometimes the court accepts the recommendation, sometimes it doesn't.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >So he may know "there is a case coming up through the courts of appeals that will be a much better case to test issue X or Y", etc. Could this be an admission that the largely senior citizen SCOTUS defers techie stuff to the SG because its so out of their experience? Its interesting to think that we have one court that could decide an issue in any form of human endeavor. From, say, abortion to copywritable APIs. Its kinda scary how much power they ultimately wield and quite a statement about how deeply we're governed and controlled by the state.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Could this be an admission that the largely senior citizen SCOTUS defers techie stuff to the SG because its so out of their experience? No, because the SCOTUS isn't deferring, and often seeks the input of the SG on cases, tech or not, particularly ones involving interpretation of federal law that would impact the role of the executive where the government is not a direct party, or ones that potentially have wide policy implications (regardless if they directly affect the role of the executive branch) where the government is not direct party. This is just a matter of the court wanting to have the issues well briefed before it makes a decision, not specifically an issue related to technology.

tzs 12y ago

I'm confused about how precedent works in this kind of case. Generally, the precedent that a particular court must follow in a case is the rulings of courts that its ruling in the case can be appealed to. So, a California district court has to follow 9th Circuit precedent in a copyright case, because it will be the 9th Circuit appeals court that gets the case on appeal. The California district court does not have to follow, say, 2nd Circuit precedent, because the case will not ever reach the 2nd Circuit appeals court. For a patent case, the path is a little different. All patent appeals go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rather then to the Circuit appeals courts. Thus, a California district court hearing a patent case follows CAFC precedent, because that's where the case will go on appeal. The Oracle-Google case is both copyright and patent. Because of the patent aspect, the appeal from the district court went to the CAFC. Although a copyright appeal would not go to CAFC on its own, CAFC is allowed to handle it when it is part of a patent case. Thus, we end up with the CAFC issuing a copyright ruling. What I do not understand is which courts have to take the CAFC copyright ruling as precedent. Suppose I sue someone over copyright in California, and suppose there are no patent issues anywhere near the case...it's just a pure copyright case. The appeal then will go to the 9th Circuit appeals court, not to CAFC, so does the district court in this case have to follow CAFC's Oracle ruling? Or do they look strictly to what the 9th Circuit has said? Given the theoretical basis for precedent, I'd expect that the district court follows the 9th Circuit. If that's the case, suppose that the defendant would really prefer to operate under CAFC copyright precedent rather than 9th Circuit copyright precedent. Could he try to add a patent counterclaim, so that the appeal would go to CAFC, and so the district court would have to follow CAFC precedent? Would I have a reasonable chance under FRCP Rule 42 to ask for separate trials on the copyright and patent issues?