Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents

1567911

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

    The only thing that really matters is that Microsoft went out of its way to make WINE possible, and WINE doesn't infringe any of Microsoft's copyrights. Different companies have different API strategies. Duh.


    You haven't actually described how these are different. Sun went out of its way to make Android possible but you claim that doesn't change anything. Sun also had a different strategy which you claim doesn't change anything.

     

    Reimplementing a similar API is extremely common, and Google's copy is no different to MinGW as I see it. Please illustrate exactly how they are different.

  • Reply 162 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     

    You haven't actually described how these are different. 


    Yes I have. Reverse engineering the functionality of software is legal. It copies no code. It doesn't even copy the SSO of the code. Reverse engineering is not the same thing as VERBATIM COPYING of 7000 lines of code. Both achieve the same objective, one is easy to do and is illegal. The other is very hard to achieve and perfectly legal.

     

    Got it yet?

  • Reply 163 of 206
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

    The only thing that really matters is that Microsoft went out of its way to make WINE possible, and WINE doesn't infringe any of Microsoft's copyrights. Different companies have different API strategies. Duh.

     


    Microsoft hates Wine. They would rather it not exist, because every person who is running photoshop or MS Office on Wine is someone would otherwise have had to buy a copy of Windows. Do you think Microsoft would pass up the chance to go after Wine if there were legal precedent for doing so? Do you really think it wouldn't look to extract copyright fees as aggressively as it licenses its patents?

  • Reply 164 of 206
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    ruddy wrote: »
    The only thing that really matters is that

    Nope, the EU ruled that the functionality of APIs isn't copyrightable.

    What do you mean "Nope"? :???:
    The EU didn't rule that API's were not protected by copyright? Sure looks like it.
    http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-05/cp120053en.pdf

    The Court recalls, first, that the Directive on the legal protection of computer programs extends copyright protection to the expression in any form of an intellectual creation of the author of a computer program.
    However, ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under that directive. Thus, only the expression of those ideas and principles is protected by copyright. The object of the protection conferred by Directive 91/250 is the expression in any form of a computer program, such as the source code and the object code, which permits reproduction in different computer languages.

    On the basis of those considerations, the Court holds that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files... used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression.
    Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection.
    To accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development.
  • Reply 165 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

    Yes I have. Reverse engineering the functionality of software is legal. It copies no code. It doesn't even copy the SSO of the code. Reverse engineering is not the same thing as VERBATIM COPYING of 7000 lines of code. Both achieve the same objective, one is easy to do and is illegal. The other is very hard to achieve and perfectly legal.

     

    Got it yet?


     

    Right this clearly illustrates that you do not fully understand what you are talking about. WINE not only reverse engineered the Windows code, they reimplemented it using exactly the same principles as Google with regard to the 37 API packages.

     

    If WINE did not do this, then those symbol entries would not resolve, and the functionality the Windows program depends on could not be replicated by WINE.

  • Reply 166 of 206
    froodfrood Posts: 771member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Hmmm. Maybe I'm not remembering the details correctly but I though Oracle accused Googs of lifting swaths code instead of just element names.

     

    That was Oracle's original stance.  After scouring the android code they found 9 lines were copied, out of over 15 million.  Oracle changed gears and whether you love or hate Google, had Oracle won it would make existing court congestion pale in comparison as every programmer from 1960 would try to claim they own the copyright/patent on any routine that 'sorts' or 'adds' or ... well pretty much anything.

  • Reply 167 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    Microsoft hates Wine. They would rather it not exist, because every person who is running photoshop or MS Office on Wine is someone would otherwise have had to buy a copy of Windows. Do you think Microsoft would pass up the chance to go after Wine if there were legal precedent for doing so? Do you really think it wouldn't look to extract copyright fees as aggressively as it licenses its patents?


     

    Oh quite possibly, but in this particular case they'd be up against a reverse-engineering defense with no provable access to their codebase or opportunity for copying their code. That situation is much different than with Java, Google not only admits access and opportunity, they admit they copied the code. The cases would be lightyears apart and MS wouldn't stand a chance and they know it. Would they do it for the nuisance value? Possibly, but hard to say, a lot of the old Microsoft is going to be swept away, at least one hopes for Microsoft's case. Will there be other API cases once this precedent is set? Oh most definitely. Will there be as much disruption as the chicken littles are jumping up and down about? I'm very doubtful of that, for the same reasons I'm extremely doubtful this ruling would have any effect on Microsoft's position wrt WINE. Will software engineers have to think differently about APIs? Absolutely. No doubt you think all that a bad thing in the long run, but what happens historically whenever something starts becoming more valuable because of copyright protection (books, music, photography, movies, etc.) is that industries and economies expand around them (which after all, was the whole point of the copyright clause in the Constitution). APIs becoming more valuable is going to mean more industry investment in APIs, more software engineering jobs, more entrepreneurial opportunities, and more companies competing to create innovative stuff that's cooler than their competitors. 

  • Reply 168 of 206

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    What do you mean "Nope"? image

    I mean nope because the EU does not contemplate protectable expression co-existing alongside functionality. However US copyright case law expressly does, and still protects it. 

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     

    WINE not only reverse engineered the Windows code, they reimplemented it using exactly the same principles as Google with regard to the 37 API packages.


    Honestly, what is your problem with understanding that WINE did not copy any code? Google did copy Java code. 7000+ lines of it verbatim, and they even admit it. That is the source of the infringement. No one has even accused Google's implementation code of infringement, why do you pretend that's what it's about?

  • Reply 169 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

    Honestly, what is your problem with understanding that WINE did not copy any code? Google did copy Java code. 7000+ lines of it verbatim, and they even admit it. That is the source of the infringement. No one has even accused Google's implementation code of infringement, why do you pretend that's what it's about?


     

    I think you are just confused. The code at issue here is dictated by the names you choose (WINE has no choice in this) and the datatypes (exactly the same) and by the language you write the code in.

     

    The only freedom Google had was either to abandon any sort of Java interoperability or use identical code. Of course they admit it, anyone trying to implement that function must copy the definition exactly or the function wouldn't work correctly. For this reason, any reimplementation must always copy the code (or translate an identical copy to whatever language they use). This is true for Google and Mono and all the other examples you've been given.

  • Reply 170 of 206
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

     

    Oh quite possibly, but in this particular case they'd be up against a reverse-engineering defense with no provable access to their codebase or opportunity for copying their code. That situation is much different than with Java, Google not only admits access and opportunity, they admit they copied the code


    No they didn't. From an Arstechnica article a few months ago (emphasis added):

    "Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley said the fact that Java is freely available and widely used by programmers doesn't mean the code can't get copyright protection. She asked Google's lawyer, Robert Van Nest, if the company could go ahead and use APIs from Apple or Microsoft. "This would apply to every possible computer program out there," she said.

     

    Yes, but only the command structure,” Van Nest responded. “They would have to rewrite millions of lines of code. That’s what Android did. Fifteen million lines of Android code are all original.”" (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/googles-copyright-win-against-oracle-is-in-danger-on-appeal/)

    In other words, Google took the function declarations ("the command structure") in the Java API and wrote their own implementations just like the Wine project performed a clean room implementation of the Win32 API. If the court decides in Oracle's favor then Wine would be in danger of falling, because what they did with the Windows API is no different from what Google did with the Java API. I think it's no accident that MS filed an amicus curiae supporting Oracle. They want the legal precedent, which they've lacked prior to this case, to be able to go after the reimplementations of the Windows API.

  • Reply 171 of 206
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    ruddy wrote: »
    I mean nope because the EU does not contemplate protectable expression co-existing alongside functionality. However US copyright case law expressly does, and still protects it.

    Ah, so nope actually meant yup, the EU high court ruled API's don't get copyright protection. Gotcha. Not sure how you came up with the excuse that they don't contemplate expression co-existing alongside functionality since they reference it in their explanation of the ruling. :\

    I even quoted it for you.
  • Reply 172 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    No they didn't. 


    You are in denial. Google admitted to copying more than 7000 lines of declaring code verbatim before the trial began. It was never in dispute. But keep pretending otherwise.

  • Reply 173 of 206
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

    You are in denial. Google admitted to copying more than 7000 lines of declaring code verbatim before the trial began. It was never in dispute. But keep pretending otherwise.


     

    The one that os trying to twist the reality is you, they didn't copy code, they did copy, as anyone has to do, copied the fracking  API structure.

     

    I suppose that you're the same ruddy from Ars Technica, perhaps is better that you don't make predictions,. All of your predictions for the trial were wrong even if you seem to be the world best IP lawyer. Ups, like you're doing here

  • Reply 174 of 206
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

    Honestly, what is your problem with understanding that WINE did not copy any code? Google did copy Java code. 7000+ lines of it verbatim, and they even admit it. That is the source of the infringement. No one has even accused Google's implementation code of infringement, why do you pretend that's what it's about?


    The one that doesn't understand what an API is is you.

     

    And by the way, it was not Google show copied the API, was Apache Foundation. 

  • Reply 175 of 206
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     

     

    I think you are just confused. The code at issue here is dictated by the names you choose (WINE has no choice in this) and the datatypes (exactly the same) and by the language you write the code in.


    You can pretend all you like the world will fall apart when the CAFC reverses Alsup's ruling. The plain fact is it's extremely hard to convince a trial judge of copyright infringement for software without code actually having been COPIED. To prove it you must prove the defendant had both access and opportunity, and you must show that the accused code itself is identical or nearly so. Not a problem in Oracle v Google since Google admits to copying Java's declaring code verbatim, so it was easy for the jury to find them guilty of infringement. Regardless of what the CAFC decides on the copyrightability of APIs, Microsft has no proof of anyone involved with WINE actually copying their code--nor will they. Reverse engineering does not involve the copying of code. Google coming up with their own implementing code won't let them off the hook for copying the declaring code for the 37 Java API packages, unless a judge or jury finds that the copying was fair use. 

  • Reply 176 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

     

    All of your predictions for the trial were wrong


    All my predictions come right as soon as the CAFC overturns Judge Alsup's ruling.

  • Reply 177 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

     

    And by the way, it was not Google show copied the API, was Apache Foundation. 


    Apache copied Java, Google copied Apache. Are you such a dim bulb to think that magically lets Google off the hook? That's a weasel's argument.

  • Reply 178 of 206
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

    You can pretend all you like the world will fall apart when the CAFC reverses Alsup's ruling. The plain fact is it's extremely hard to convince a trial judge of copyright infringement for software without code actually having been COPIED. To prove it you must prove the defendant had both access and opportunity, and you must show that the accused code itself is identical or nearly so. Not a problem in Oracle v Google since Google admits to copying Java's declaring code verbatim, so it was easy for the jury to find them guilty of infringement. Regardless of what the CAFC decides on the copyrightability of APIs, Microsft has no proof of anyone involved with WINE actually copying their code--nor will they. Reverse engineering does not involve the copying of code. Google coming up with their own implementing code won't let them off the hook for copying the declaring code for the 37 Java API packages, unless a judge or jury finds that the copying was fair use. 


    "declaring code" is the same thing as an API. After all, an API is precisely a collection of declarations for functions and constants. Copying Microsoft's API (as WINE and MinGW have done) is the same thing as putting the declaring code on MS's website in your header files, just as WINE and MinGW have done. Every line of code in MinGW's header files is lifted faithfully from Microsoft's documentation. The compiler wouldn't work otherwise; how could you compile a program that calls MessageBox() from windows.h unless MinGW provided a file called windows.h that declares the MessageBox() function exactly as Microsoft does?

  • Reply 179 of 206
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    "declaring code" is the same thing as an API. After all, an API is precisely a collection of declarations for functions and constants. Copying Microsoft's API (as WINE and MinGW have done) is the same thing as putting the declaring code on MS's website in your header files, just as WINE and MinGW have done. Every line of code in MinGW's header files is lifted faithfully from Microsoft's documentation. The compiler wouldn't work otherwise; how could you compile a program that calls MessageBox() from windows.h unless MinGW provided a file called windows.h that declares the MessageBox() function exactly as Microsoft does?


    I think basically ruddy doesn't program, or doesn't understand enough of programming in order to be able to appreciate why this is an issue.

     

    I don't know if I could explain it any more succinctly, and I don't want to insult him or pointlessly repeat myself so I'm just going to end it here. I'm not a lawyer nor in the US so I have no idea if the ruling will be overturned, I just speak from the position of a developer that sees this as a serious problem.

  • Reply 180 of 206

    You guys keep wanting to pretend that declaring code isn't literal code, that it's magic fairy dust instead of something extremely complex and creative that can be copied. Alternatively you want to pretend that the API itself has no creative expression, that it can't be infringed, that it can't be hijacked by a ruthless competitor. Guys like you want to make it easy for huge companies like Google to hijack the copyrighted achievements of competitors. You would make it easy for the Googles and Microsofts to ripoff any API innovations from upstarts and independent developers. 

     

    I've not written code for a living since 1981, but I fully recognize the creative expression that goes into developing, it goes far beyond mere problem solving. That's the real difference between our points of view. There is creative expression in API code as well as the noncopyrightable functionality. In the US we're not going to buy into the idea that because the purpose of APIs is functional, the original expression in them automagically goes away. That's Alsup's theory for the noncopyrightability of APIs, as well as the EU's. The CAFC sounds very much like they are in unanimous disagreement with that and will reverse the trial court's decision. Unless the Supreme Court has radically altered its copyright thinking since Feist, it's hard to see they will want to stop protecting the original expression found in any kind of software code. 

Sign In or Register to comment.