18 ms·

Supreme Court denies review of Google v. Oracle API copyright case [pdf]

107 points by mikecb 11y ago

mikecb 11y ago
This leaves in place the ruling of the Federal Circuit, which ruled that the Java APIs in this case were copyrightable, though it left open the possibility that Google had a fair use defense.
drallison 11y ago
See http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/2354/ http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/2354/ for Pam Samuelson's CACM article on this issue.
- SloopJon 11y ago
  Interesting article, but worth noting that it was written well before Oracle's successful appeal.
andyjohnson0 11y ago
Does anyone know why Alito apparently recused himself in this case?
- fixxer 11y ago
  Most likely, he owns stock.
- jackgavigan 11y ago
  He owned between $100,001 and $250,000 of Oracle stock at the end of 2013. http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/assets.php?year=2013&cid=N99999926 http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/assets.php?year=2013&cid=N99...
  - jahnu 11y ago
    Given the scope of their work it seems odd they wouldn't be required to put their money in a blind trust. At least as a matter of good taste.
    - mbreese 11y ago
      A SCOTUS appointment is for life. How long should they keep things in a blind trust? It's common for politicians to keep assets in a blind trust only while they are in office.
      - _stephan 11y ago
        As long as they serve as judges? Why should SCOTUS judges engage in stock picking?
        bpicolo 11y ago
        Why would they be expected to not participate in the economy?
      - jahnu 11y ago
        Why not as long as they don't want to cash it out or retire?
petilon 11y ago
This case is going to be especially relevant for Microsoft now that they are cloning Apple's iOS APIs: https://dev.windows.com/en-us/uwp-bridges/project-islandwood https://dev.windows.com/en-us/uwp-bridges/project-islandwood In my opinion implementing someone else's API should be allowed under the fair use provision of the copyright law. This is needed so that whoever came up with the API does not hoard applications developed for the API and stifle innovation and competition at the platform level, as Microsoft did for many years with the Win32 API.
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  What's even more amusing is that Microsoft sided with Oracle in this case. Looks like that's going to bite them in the ass soon.
  - tankenmate 11y ago
    Not really, they'll pay off Apple. Who it will really hurt is start ups that don't have the money to license. If APIs are held to be copyrightable and not subject to fair use then this will lead to reduced innovation in the US. A similar ruling in Germany went the other way and stated that APIs are functional and hence not copyrightable.
    - bitmapbrother 11y ago
      Apple doesn't need the money. What they do need, however, is developer lock in which is probably non negotiable.
      - andybak 11y ago
        However there is probably a quid pro quo somewhere in there that will give Microsoft leverage. So the previous point still stands, with one minor modification. The giants will come to terms and the small-fry will be screwed.
        11y ago
AaronFriel 11y ago
I suspect what we will see happen is the District Court will rule that it was fair use, it will go to the Federal Circuit again and then the Federal Circuit will overturn the fair use claim. As the Federal Circuit is incredibly pro-IP, I suspect they will be unpersuaded by any claim otherwise. At that point, if SCOTUS does not take up an appeal, the computer science world will have a big problem. If APIs are copyrighted and reimplementing libraries violates copyright, then: What of all the projects that have implemented LIBC, and used glibc's API and headers? e.g.: Is musl now GPL? What of any OS or project that has implemented a POSIX layer? (Is this the decision SCO needed to finally sue someone for Linux finally violating SCO's copyright?) What of any project that implements x-plat APIs? As another comment pointed out, Microsoft's Project Islandwood re-implements iOS APIs. But Xamarin, Cordova and other projects all ingest APIs and reconfigure them to make them accessible on multiple platforms. Are they contaminated by copyright now? If the Federal Circuit decision stands, software might have finally encountered the lump it can't digest as it eats the world.
- jbandela1 11y ago
  For libc at least, the API is actually an ISO standard. Same with the C++ standard library. Therefore, you should not expect issues like this. Now, using a language which is owned by one company, Google's lawyers really dropped the ball in terms of risk.
  - parfe 11y ago
    Does the ISO standardization process include a copyright license or assignment? Copyright had pretty specific rules over who owns a work. Assigning your copyright to someone else requires certain explicit steps.
    - bitmapbrother 11y ago
      I've been trying to find the answer to this to no avail. I did find it interesting that the ISO does enforce copyright for their own works.
bitmapbrother 11y ago
SQL was initially developed at IBM by Donald D. Chamberlin and Raymond F. Boyce in the early 1970s.[14] This version, initially called SEQUEL (Structured English QUEry Language), was designed to manipulate and retrieve data stored in IBM's original quasi-relational database management system, System R, which a group at IBM San Jose Research Laboratory had developed during the 1970s. In the late 1970s, Relational Software, Inc. (now Oracle Corporation) saw the potential of the concepts described by Codd, Chamberlin, and Boyce, and developed their own SQL-based RDBMS with aspirations of selling it to the U.S. Navy, Central Intelligence Agency, and other U.S. government agencies. In June 1979, Relational Software, Inc. introduced the first commercially available implementation of SQL, Oracle V2 (Version2) for VAX computers. Does IBM have a case to go after Oracle for using the SQL API SSO in their database products?
- jbandela1 11y ago
  SQL is an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 9075). This is completely different from implementing the API of a proprietary language.
  - bitmapbrother 11y ago
    Regardless of whether SQL is an ISO standard, doesn't IBM still own the copyright to SQL or were they forced to give it up as part of the condition to becoming an ISO standard?
    - jacobr1 11y ago
      I don't know about that case in particular, but in general: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/Common_Policy.htm?nodeid=6344764&vernum=-2 http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/37707...
      - bitmapbrother 11y ago
        That seems to pertain to patents. There doesn't seem to be any mention of copyright.
steego 11y ago
Working in a field where we're required to define things with mathematical precision, it's frustrating listening to lawyers and judges flail about trying to figure out how to interpret laws. I don't want to claim that the law is a trivial matter and that it could be replaced with software, but I do think our legal system could be greatly enhanced with some ideas in math and software development. There are always going to be ambiguity in legal matters, but that doesn't mean we can't greatly reduce that ambiguity with good tools. I know this is a really tall order, but one idea in particular I'd like to see is the introduction of some sort of unit testing or model checking during the legislative process where legal scenarios are parameterized and enumerated to act as a guide for legislators, lawyers and judges. I'd love to see something like Alloy (http://alloy.mit.edu/alloy/ http://alloy.mit.edu/alloy/) be implemented in a way that non-programmers could use to model check things like bylaws by guiding the user through ambiguous and conflicting scenarios. I'm not suggesting we try to make laws satisfiable. What I am suggesting is that we model them in a way that highlight and distinguish the laws that are poorly crafted from those which are clearly interpreted. Legal ambiguity is really expensive weight on our society. Not only does this sort of ruling create investment uncertainty, it benefits incumbents who can buy armies of lawyers and intimidate competitors with drawn out lawsuits. Our legal system should be the great equalizer, but it will never be as long as we let judges and lawyers convince us to resign that our current system "is as good as it gets".
- rayiner 11y ago
  How would model checking have helped here? The issue here is two fairly unambiguous provisions of 17 USC 102: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 Subsection (a) says that copyright extends to "original works of authorship." Subsection (b) says that copyright does not extend to "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery." Where does an "original work of authorship" end and where does "method of operation" begin? How would you propose to define those concepts in a way that is less ambiguous? That is, without arbitrarily throwing away the distinction the law is trying to make just because you can't model it?
  - 11y ago
RexRollman 11y ago
Another reason to dislike Oracle.
jorgecastillo 11y ago
I don't know what to say, this feels so wrong (APIs being copyrighted). If any tech company deserves hate it's Oracle without a doubt. I just hope common sense prevails at the end and Google wins.
jimrandomh 11y ago
The title here is wrong; it's Oracle v. Google, not Google v. Oracle. The plaintiff's name always goes first. (EDIT: This was incorrect; the original case was Oracle v Google but the appeal is the reverse.)
- ky3 11y ago
  "In certain appellate situations, where the old form of petition for review is prescribed, the name of the petitioner -- the party seeking review -- goes first, whether the petitioner is plaintiff or defendant. Thus in the familiar "certiorari" ... where the Court is responding to the request of the party seeking review." Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=lLHBCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT70&lpg=PT70&dq=plaintiff+name+first+certiorari&source=bl&ots=z_JP_KI6dG&sig=lENZjd_IE3cuJE9UJXwOXrF8xDM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImWRVc7KJMLhuQT--IMg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=plaintiff%20name%20first%20certiorari&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=lLHBCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT70&lpg=P...
- mikecb 11y ago
  That's true in the lower court, but here, Google is the petitioner, so as the movant, their name goes first. See the docket: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-410.htm http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfile...
estefan 11y ago
I'm calling shotgun on login(username, password) and save()...
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  You forgot to structure and organize it.
- Matheus28 11y ago
  Dibs on main()
jimrandomh 11y ago
The Oracle v. Google copyright case hinged on two things. The first was about the copyrightability of APIs (in legal jargon, "structure, sequence and organization"). The second was a function called rangeCheck, which was: private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex { if (fromIndex > toIndex) throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")"); if (fromIndex < 0) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex); if (toIndex > arrayLen) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex); } The function is obviously trivial, is something which could be pretty easily recalled exactly from memory, and could be easily recreated by accident; given the constraints on what it's supposed to do, there aren't many degrees of freedom. At the district court level, Judge Alsup ruled that copying of this function was "de minimis". At the Federal Circuit level, Justices O'Malley, Plager and Taranto overturned this part of the district court ruling (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federal_Circuit/13-1021/Oracle_America_Inc._v._Google_Inc./Order-05-09-14/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federa...). On the issue of "structure, sequence, and organization", Google copied the class and method names from Java, so that their reimplementation of Java, Dalvik, would be interoperable with existing Java programs and Java programmers' habits. Judge Alsup ruled that is a "command structure, a system or method of operation" and not copyrightable 17 USC 102(b) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102) (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf). This, too, was overturned by the district court. There is a fairly key difference here between Judge Alsup and the District judges. Part-way through the trial, Alsup revealed that he has actually programmed; that he understood what was going on, and would not be easily fooled. At the time, this being revealed was a dramatic event. The District judges, however, hold no such distinction. It is no surprise, then, that it was them, and not Alsup, who made a ruling that to actual programmers is prima facie unreasonable and dangerous. They are outsiders. If you read their opinion (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federal_Circuit/13-1021/ORACLE_AMERICA_INC._v._GOOGLE_INC./Order-05-09-14/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federa...) you can see little errors in terminology creep in to reveal their lack of background and understanding. And, lacking that understanding, I don't see how they can be seen as having moral authority. They only have legal authority, and the ability to do damage with it.
Rayearth 11y ago
I'm disappointed if only because the oral argument for a case like this may have been fascinating - what do the supreme court justices have to say about things computer science? It might turn out like the violent video game ban case from a few years back, when Justice Kagan quipped that she (or rather, he clerks) were familiar with games such as Mortal Kombat. Perhaps she, or her clerks, may also have some experience with Java?

107 points by mikecb 11y ago

This leaves in place the ruling of the Federal Circuit, which ruled that the Java APIs in this case were copyrightable, though it left open the possibility that Google had a fair use defense.

drallison 11y ago

See http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/2354/ http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/2354/ for Pam Samuelson's CACM article on this issue.

SloopJon 11y ago
Interesting article, but worth noting that it was written well before Oracle's successful appeal.

andyjohnson0 11y ago

Does anyone know why Alito apparently recused himself in this case?

fixxer 11y ago
Most likely, he owns stock.
jackgavigan 11y ago
He owned between $100,001 and $250,000 of Oracle stock at the end of 2013. http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/assets.php?year=2013&cid=N99999926 http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/assets.php?year=2013&cid=N99...
- jahnu 11y ago
  Given the scope of their work it seems odd they wouldn't be required to put their money in a blind trust. At least as a matter of good taste.
  - mbreese 11y ago
    A SCOTUS appointment is for life. How long should they keep things in a blind trust? It's common for politicians to keep assets in a blind trust only while they are in office.
    - _stephan 11y ago
      As long as they serve as judges? Why should SCOTUS judges engage in stock picking?
      - bpicolo 11y ago
        Why would they be expected to not participate in the economy?
    - jahnu 11y ago
      Why not as long as they don't want to cash it out or retire?

petilon 11y ago

This case is going to be especially relevant for Microsoft now that they are cloning Apple's iOS APIs: https://dev.windows.com/en-us/uwp-bridges/project-islandwood https://dev.windows.com/en-us/uwp-bridges/project-islandwood In my opinion implementing someone else's API should be allowed under the fair use provision of the copyright law. This is needed so that whoever came up with the API does not hoard applications developed for the API and stifle innovation and competition at the platform level, as Microsoft did for many years with the Win32 API.

bitmapbrother 11y ago
What's even more amusing is that Microsoft sided with Oracle in this case. Looks like that's going to bite them in the ass soon.
- tankenmate 11y ago
  Not really, they'll pay off Apple. Who it will really hurt is start ups that don't have the money to license. If APIs are held to be copyrightable and not subject to fair use then this will lead to reduced innovation in the US. A similar ruling in Germany went the other way and stated that APIs are functional and hence not copyrightable.
  - bitmapbrother 11y ago
    Apple doesn't need the money. What they do need, however, is developer lock in which is probably non negotiable.
    - andybak 11y ago
      However there is probably a quid pro quo somewhere in there that will give Microsoft leverage. So the previous point still stands, with one minor modification. The giants will come to terms and the small-fry will be screwed.
      - 11y ago

AaronFriel 11y ago

I suspect what we will see happen is the District Court will rule that it was fair use, it will go to the Federal Circuit again and then the Federal Circuit will overturn the fair use claim. As the Federal Circuit is incredibly pro-IP, I suspect they will be unpersuaded by any claim otherwise. At that point, if SCOTUS does not take up an appeal, the computer science world will have a big problem. If APIs are copyrighted and reimplementing libraries violates copyright, then: What of all the projects that have implemented LIBC, and used glibc's API and headers? e.g.: Is musl now GPL? What of any OS or project that has implemented a POSIX layer? (Is this the decision SCO needed to finally sue someone for Linux finally violating SCO's copyright?) What of any project that implements x-plat APIs? As another comment pointed out, Microsoft's Project Islandwood re-implements iOS APIs. But Xamarin, Cordova and other projects all ingest APIs and reconfigure them to make them accessible on multiple platforms. Are they contaminated by copyright now? If the Federal Circuit decision stands, software might have finally encountered the lump it can't digest as it eats the world.

jbandela1 11y ago
For libc at least, the API is actually an ISO standard. Same with the C++ standard library. Therefore, you should not expect issues like this. Now, using a language which is owned by one company, Google's lawyers really dropped the ball in terms of risk.
- parfe 11y ago
  Does the ISO standardization process include a copyright license or assignment? Copyright had pretty specific rules over who owns a work. Assigning your copyright to someone else requires certain explicit steps.
  - bitmapbrother 11y ago
    I've been trying to find the answer to this to no avail. I did find it interesting that the ISO does enforce copyright for their own works.

bitmapbrother 11y ago

SQL was initially developed at IBM by Donald D. Chamberlin and Raymond F. Boyce in the early 1970s.[14] This version, initially called SEQUEL (Structured English QUEry Language), was designed to manipulate and retrieve data stored in IBM's original quasi-relational database management system, System R, which a group at IBM San Jose Research Laboratory had developed during the 1970s. In the late 1970s, Relational Software, Inc. (now Oracle Corporation) saw the potential of the concepts described by Codd, Chamberlin, and Boyce, and developed their own SQL-based RDBMS with aspirations of selling it to the U.S. Navy, Central Intelligence Agency, and other U.S. government agencies. In June 1979, Relational Software, Inc. introduced the first commercially available implementation of SQL, Oracle V2 (Version2) for VAX computers. Does IBM have a case to go after Oracle for using the SQL API SSO in their database products?

jbandela1 11y ago
SQL is an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 9075). This is completely different from implementing the API of a proprietary language.
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  Regardless of whether SQL is an ISO standard, doesn't IBM still own the copyright to SQL or were they forced to give it up as part of the condition to becoming an ISO standard?
  - jacobr1 11y ago
    I don't know about that case in particular, but in general: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/Common_Policy.htm?nodeid=6344764&vernum=-2 http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/37707...
    - bitmapbrother 11y ago
      That seems to pertain to patents. There doesn't seem to be any mention of copyright.

steego 11y ago

Working in a field where we're required to define things with mathematical precision, it's frustrating listening to lawyers and judges flail about trying to figure out how to interpret laws. I don't want to claim that the law is a trivial matter and that it could be replaced with software, but I do think our legal system could be greatly enhanced with some ideas in math and software development. There are always going to be ambiguity in legal matters, but that doesn't mean we can't greatly reduce that ambiguity with good tools. I know this is a really tall order, but one idea in particular I'd like to see is the introduction of some sort of unit testing or model checking during the legislative process where legal scenarios are parameterized and enumerated to act as a guide for legislators, lawyers and judges. I'd love to see something like Alloy (http://alloy.mit.edu/alloy/ http://alloy.mit.edu/alloy/) be implemented in a way that non-programmers could use to model check things like bylaws by guiding the user through ambiguous and conflicting scenarios. I'm not suggesting we try to make laws satisfiable. What I am suggesting is that we model them in a way that highlight and distinguish the laws that are poorly crafted from those which are clearly interpreted. Legal ambiguity is really expensive weight on our society. Not only does this sort of ruling create investment uncertainty, it benefits incumbents who can buy armies of lawyers and intimidate competitors with drawn out lawsuits. Our legal system should be the great equalizer, but it will never be as long as we let judges and lawyers convince us to resign that our current system "is as good as it gets".

rayiner 11y ago
How would model checking have helped here? The issue here is two fairly unambiguous provisions of 17 USC 102: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 Subsection (a) says that copyright extends to "original works of authorship." Subsection (b) says that copyright does not extend to "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery." Where does an "original work of authorship" end and where does "method of operation" begin? How would you propose to define those concepts in a way that is less ambiguous? That is, without arbitrarily throwing away the distinction the law is trying to make just because you can't model it?
- 11y ago

RexRollman 11y ago

Another reason to dislike Oracle.

jorgecastillo 11y ago

I don't know what to say, this feels so wrong (APIs being copyrighted). If any tech company deserves hate it's Oracle without a doubt. I just hope common sense prevails at the end and Google wins.

jimrandomh 11y ago

The title here is wrong; it's Oracle v. Google, not Google v. Oracle. The plaintiff's name always goes first. (EDIT: This was incorrect; the original case was Oracle v Google but the appeal is the reverse.)

ky3 11y ago
"In certain appellate situations, where the old form of petition for review is prescribed, the name of the petitioner -- the party seeking review -- goes first, whether the petitioner is plaintiff or defendant. Thus in the familiar "certiorari" ... where the Court is responding to the request of the party seeking review." Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=lLHBCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT70&lpg=PT70&dq=plaintiff+name+first+certiorari&source=bl&ots=z_JP_KI6dG&sig=lENZjd_IE3cuJE9UJXwOXrF8xDM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImWRVc7KJMLhuQT--IMg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=plaintiff%20name%20first%20certiorari&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=lLHBCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT70&lpg=P...
mikecb 11y ago
That's true in the lower court, but here, Google is the petitioner, so as the movant, their name goes first. See the docket: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-410.htm http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfile...

estefan 11y ago

I'm calling shotgun on login(username, password) and save()...

bitmapbrother 11y ago
You forgot to structure and organize it.
Matheus28 11y ago
Dibs on main()

jimrandomh 11y ago

The Oracle v. Google copyright case hinged on two things. The first was about the copyrightability of APIs (in legal jargon, "structure, sequence and organization"). The second was a function called rangeCheck, which was: private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex { if (fromIndex > toIndex) throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")"); if (fromIndex < 0) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex); if (toIndex > arrayLen) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex); } The function is obviously trivial, is something which could be pretty easily recalled exactly from memory, and could be easily recreated by accident; given the constraints on what it's supposed to do, there aren't many degrees of freedom. At the district court level, Judge Alsup ruled that copying of this function was "de minimis". At the Federal Circuit level, Justices O'Malley, Plager and Taranto overturned this part of the district court ruling (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federal_Circuit/13-1021/Oracle_America_Inc._v._Google_Inc./Order-05-09-14/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federa...). On the issue of "structure, sequence, and organization", Google copied the class and method names from Java, so that their reimplementation of Java, Dalvik, would be interoperable with existing Java programs and Java programmers' habits. Judge Alsup ruled that is a "command structure, a system or method of operation" and not copyrightable 17 USC 102(b) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102) (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf). This, too, was overturned by the district court. There is a fairly key difference here between Judge Alsup and the District judges. Part-way through the trial, Alsup revealed that he has actually programmed; that he understood what was going on, and would not be easily fooled. At the time, this being revealed was a dramatic event. The District judges, however, hold no such distinction. It is no surprise, then, that it was them, and not Alsup, who made a ruling that to actual programmers is prima facie unreasonable and dangerous. They are outsiders. If you read their opinion (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federal_Circuit/13-1021/ORACLE_AMERICA_INC._v._GOOGLE_INC./Order-05-09-14/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Federa...) you can see little errors in terminology creep in to reveal their lack of background and understanding. And, lacking that understanding, I don't see how they can be seen as having moral authority. They only have legal authority, and the ability to do damage with it.

Rayearth 11y ago

I'm disappointed if only because the oral argument for a case like this may have been fascinating - what do the supreme court justices have to say about things computer science? It might turn out like the violent video game ban case from a few years back, when Justice Kagan quipped that she (or rather, he clerks) were familiar with games such as Mortal Kombat. Perhaps she, or her clerks, may also have some experience with Java?