Google staves off Oracle code copyright claim

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 61
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    nextguy said:
    Guys, why are you cheering Oracle? Have you so quickly forgotten that Apple's OSX and by extenstion, ios, use POSIX style APIs all the way back from unix, and that Attachmate is the current owner?

    Oh but Apple took it from BSD you say. So what? Google took theirs from Apache Harmony, another BSD style licensed software.

    You really want Apple having to fight off a potential jury since APIs are being infringed?
    Oracle is an evil corporation, but I can say I find this ruling to be favorable. It would open up the possibility of re-implementing the missing parts of OSX that Apple hasn't open sourced using just the API information if Apple ever decided to become morally bankrupt like Oracle and choose lawsuits over innovation.

    On the other hand, it's a fair use claim. So it's not a precedent setting thing either. This doesn't mean that I can record a sound-alike of a song and sell it as a cover of the original and pay nothing to the original artist. It's doesn't mean I can reboot a film without the copyright owner's permission. And so forth. The Wizard of OZ, and Alice in Wonderland were books before they were films, and because the films are still under copyright, even making a reference to something in the copyrighted film is considered copyright infringement of the other film. So this is where the "Java API" vs the "Android API" are more alike than different. The API itself might have a copyright, but Google hasn't copied Oracle's Java virtual machine, or tried to create an incompatible one (like microsoft did) to pass off as the official thing. For an API to be compatibile, it has to implement all the functions, even if those functions are inefficient or do nothing on the hardware platform. So you can't run an Android app on a Java VM, but you might be able to convert a Java app into an Android app. 

    But honestly, the greatest support for "Google is infringing on Oracle" is the requirement to use the Oracle JDK to develop Android.



  • Reply 22 of 61
    karmadavekarmadave Posts: 312member
    Can't say I am surprised by this decision. Sun was always encouraging the use of Java while at the same time trying to license it's own branded implementation. Prior to the Oracle acquiring them, they tried unsuccessfully to get Google to license their Java (Eric Schmidt was an ex-Sun exec)  but Google decided it was in their best interest to develop their own implementation. Pending a successful appeal, this decision ensure that Java will remain 'open' as a language although branded implementations will still require a license from Oracle. Too bad Sun or Oracle could never get it's act together and develop a commercially successful Java implementation for smart phones and tablets. Blackberry was a Java licensee, but we all know how well that turned out ;)
  • Reply 23 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    auxio said:
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    I agree that Oracle shouldn't have tried to go the API copyright route.  I never really understood that line of argument.

    However, the core people at Google know damn well what they did is shady.  They needed to quickly get a software development environment for Android, and instead of going with something truly open and spending the time/resources in polishing it for commercial use (as NeXT/Apple did with Objective-C), or licensing it from someone, they simply "cloned-and-owned" Java.  They took advantage of the investment Sun had made in creating, refining, and popularizing Java amongst developers, without paying them a dime in licensing fees (as other companies were doing).  In turn, killing the core business model for Java.

    Sorry, but anyone who works in tech and doesn't see that as a sleazy, bad-for-the-industry, dick move deserves to lose their job/business to a knock-off company.
    Java itself isn't copied is it? At least that's been reported. 
    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-the-very-silly-oracle-v-google-trial-actually-matters
    Again, I don't agree with the notion that APIs and programming language structures should be copyrightable.  However, when you put together programming APIs, tools, a highly portable runtime environment, make it simple to use and well documented.  Then set up a licensing structure for device creators so that, if they choose to pay it, they can easily spin up a development environment for their commercial products (saving them a ton in R&D costs), you should have a protectable product IMO.
    Sounds sensical. FWIW I think Google should have at least done a one-time license deal with Sun for some minimal amount even if they had no intention of actually using Java per-se, just the declaring code. Things would have been cleaner from a legal standpoint. 
  • Reply 24 of 61


    Damn shame, really.
    "We strongly believe that Google developed Android by illegally copying core Java technology
    Well, core something technology.
    API's from Oracle.
    UI from Apple via Eric Schmidt
    Nexus name from Philip K. Dick's family.
    All without permission.

    What an utterly innovative, original phone (not to mention company).
    tallest skilpscooter63macplusplus
  • Reply 25 of 61
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,460member
    nextguy said:
    Guys, why are you cheering Oracle? Have you so quickly forgotten that Apple's OSX and by extenstion, ios, use POSIX style APIs all the way back from unix, and that Attachmate is the current owner?

    Oh but Apple took it from BSD you say. So what? Google took theirs from Apache Harmony, another BSD style licensed software.

    You really want Apple having to fight off a potential jury since APIs are being infringed?
    Not likely. To begin with, BSD APIs weren't wholesale copies of AT&T System III.
  • Reply 26 of 61
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member
    nextguy said:
    Guys, why are you cheering Oracle? Have you so quickly forgotten that Apple's OSX and by extenstion, ios, use POSIX style APIs all the way back from unix, and that Attachmate is the current owner?

    Oh but Apple took it from BSD you say. So what? Google took theirs from Apache Harmony, another BSD style licensed software.

    You really want Apple having to fight off a potential jury since APIs are being infringed?
    There's no jury in Apple's future in relation to BSD. OS X (as well as NextStep and iOS) are based in part on BSD, using the BSD license for those parts, along with homegrown stuff, mostly on top of the BSD stack. OS X has since OS X Leopard been a regular certified UNIX 03 genuine accept no substitutes Unix distribution. It comes by its POSIX compliance honestly.

    There's a difference between adhering to license agreements (as Apple did with their forks of BSD) and sneaking in under the fence.
  • Reply 27 of 61
    danoxdanox Posts: 386member
    nextguy said:
    Guys, why are you cheering Oracle? Have you so quickly forgotten that Apple's OSX and by extenstion, ios, use POSIX style APIs all the way back from unix, and that Attachmate is the current owner?

    Oh but Apple took it from BSD you say. So what? Google took theirs from Apache Harmony, another BSD style licensed software.

    You really want Apple having to fight off a potential jury since APIs are being infringed?
    Google steals, and will steal again.
  • Reply 28 of 61
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    danox said:
    Google steals, and will steal again.
    They steal personal info from their products customers who are we kidding, products.
    palomine
  • Reply 29 of 61
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,143member
    It's funny, except for a few people on here you really can't find anyone anywhere rooting for Oracle. 
    staticx57
  • Reply 30 of 61
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    It's about time one of these thieving companies got their comeuppance. 
    Do you apply that to instances where Apple infringes on other's intellectual property?
    singularity
  • Reply 31 of 61
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,202member
    cnocbui said:
    It's about time one of these thieving companies got their comeuppance. 
    Do you apply that to instances where Apple infringes on other's intellectual property?
    Not even in the same league. Are Apple a serial IP offender? No they are not. So you can't compare. 
    tallest skilpalomine
  • Reply 32 of 61
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    cnocbui said:
    Do you apply that to instances where Apple infringes on other's intellectual property?
    Not even in the same league. Are Apple a serial IP offender? No they are not. So you can't compare. 
    Apple are a serial offender.  According to Fosspatents they pay out more  for infringing patents than they receive from their patents being infringed.
    singularity
  • Reply 33 of 61
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,316member
    nextguy said:
    Guys, why are you cheering Oracle? Have you so quickly forgotten that Apple's OSX and by extenstion, ios, use POSIX style APIs all the way back from unix, and that Attachmate is the current owner?

    Oh but Apple took it from BSD you say. So what? Google took theirs from Apache Harmony, another BSD style licensed software.

    You really want Apple having to fight off a potential jury since APIs are being infringed?
    Not a good comparison at all, the posix API was create to be open and implemented by all (to make UNIX a stronger and more compatible platform).
    Sun's Java API wasn't open to implement for all from the start, all implementations had to be certified by Sun when used in a commercial product.
    Thats a clear cut difference. 
    By renaming it to Android, Google tried to circumvent the certification, and that's what this case is about.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 34 of 61
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,652member
    "Not copyrightable" then "fair use" is the standard pattern of copyright litigation. Copyright is such a powerful right (especially in the US) that if you lose your case, your only line of defense is fair use, which is too weak anyway. Systematic and continuous use cannot be defended as fair use. So that case will follow its usual appeal route and will be reversed.

    By the way Google has already abandoned Android after losing that case. It fired its creator and delegated Android to the Chrome team.
    ronn
  • Reply 35 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    knowitall said:
    nextguy said:
    Guys, why are you cheering Oracle? Have you so quickly forgotten that Apple's OSX and by extenstion, ios, use POSIX style APIs all the way back from unix, and that Attachmate is the current owner?

    Oh but Apple took it from BSD you say. So what? Google took theirs from Apache Harmony, another BSD style licensed software.

    You really want Apple having to fight off a potential jury since APIs are being infringed?
    Not a good comparison at all, the posix API was create to be open and implemented by all (to make UNIX a stronger and more compatible platform).
    Sun's Java API wasn't open to implement for all from the start, all implementations had to be certified by Sun when used in a commercial product.
    Thats a clear cut difference. 
    By renaming it to Android, Google tried to circumvent the certification, and that's what this case is about.
    ...except that according to some of the best law professors in the US this should never have been reversed in the first place as API's should not be copyright eligible to begin with.

    Here's how Sun's CEO explained API's as they relate to Java:

    "An API is like a restaurant menu. An implementation is the food itself. So two restaurants can offer “hamburgers,” using the same word for two different dishes. The word “hamburger” lets the customer know approximately what they’re getting, it’s a useful shorthand that lets them parse menus that across many different restaurants.

    Similarly, java.security tells a developer exactly what kind of library they’re calling, because it’s similar across many different languages. The implementations of java.security in Java Standard Edition (Oracle’s proprietary implementation of Java) and in Android (created by Google) are different. But the function is the same."

    If accurate the trial should never have been about Fair Use, an almost impossible argument based on the (erroneous?) Fed Appeals reversal. API's should not be copyright eligible. https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/13/google_v_oracle_cert_pet_ip_profs_amicus.pdf

    Little known fact: Even some of the Java API's were in effect copies of other API's from Perl 5 and the C programming language. 

    So while Alsup may have made some trial errors he was right on that point according to them and it was the Fed Appeals court that got it wrong, but that's why lawyers are paid so much to make convincing arguments. If things were so cut and dried we wouldn't need trials. 

    TBH the whole thing would have been greatly simplified if Google had given Sun $100,000 for licensing even if they weren't going to use Java anyway, only the API's (described as akin to a filing cabinet or restaurant menu) for organization. Penny-wise and pound-foolish as my Grandma would say. Dumb move on Google's part, one I'm sure they would have handled differently in hindsight. 
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 36 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    By the way Google has already abandoned Android after losing that case. It fired its creator and delegated Android to the Chrome team.
    Android is doomed.
    cnocbuisingularity
  • Reply 37 of 61
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,202member
    cnocbui said:
    Not even in the same league. Are Apple a serial IP offender? No they are not. So you can't compare. 
    Apple are a serial offender.  According to Fosspatents they pay out more  for infringing patents than they receive from their patents being infringed.
    Use your brain, and stop looking at stats. I'm not going to give you the answer, but think... why is Fosspatents not a good representation for your argument? 
    tallest skil
  • Reply 38 of 61
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,652member
    knowitall said:
    nextguy said:
    Guys, why are you cheering Oracle? Have you so quickly forgotten that Apple's OSX and by extenstion, ios, use POSIX style APIs all the way back from unix, and that Attachmate is the current owner?

    Oh but Apple took it from BSD you say. So what? Google took theirs from Apache Harmony, another BSD style licensed software.

    You really want Apple having to fight off a potential jury since APIs are being infringed?
    Not a good comparison at all, the posix API was create to be open and implemented by all (to make UNIX a stronger and more compatible platform).
    Sun's Java API wasn't open to implement for all from the start, all implementations had to be certified by Sun when used in a commercial product.
    Thats a clear cut difference. 
    By renaming it to Android, Google tried to circumvent the certification, and that's what this case is about.
    Exactly. There is precedent. In 1997 Sun sued Microsoft foır incompletely implementing the Java 1.1 standard. Microsoft settled the case with Sun in 2001 and dropped its Java.
    ronn
  • Reply 39 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    knowitall said:
    nextguy said:
    Guys, why are you cheering Oracle? Have you so quickly forgotten that Apple's OSX and by extenstion, ios, use POSIX style APIs all the way back from unix, and that Attachmate is the current owner?

    Oh but Apple took it from BSD you say. So what? Google took theirs from Apache Harmony, another BSD style licensed software.

    You really want Apple having to fight off a potential jury since APIs are being infringed?
    Not a good comparison at all, the posix API was create to be open and implemented by all (to make UNIX a stronger and more compatible platform).
    Sun's Java API wasn't open to implement for all from the start, all implementations had to be certified by Sun when used in a commercial product.
    Thats a clear cut difference. 
    By renaming it to Android, Google tried to circumvent the certification, and that's what this case is about.
    Exactly. There is precedent. In 1997 Sun sued Microsoft foır incompletely implementing the Java 1.1 standard. Microsoft settled the case with Sun in 2001 and dropped its Java.
    So there's no precedent as the case was never tried? In that case Microsoft also had licensed Java so the lawsuit was over an entirely different set of issues. Other than Sun and Java there's not much relationship to the Oracle/Google case is there? 

     FWIW Google should have offered Sun some one-off license fee too and Oracle could have sucked on eggs, but they didn't, Oracle lawyers were able to convince one court that API's should be eligible for copyright and here we are.  Not smart on Google's part to leave something like this to chance and interpretation. 
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 40 of 61
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,652member
    gatorguy said:
    knowitall said:
    Not a good comparison at all, the posix API was create to be open and implemented by all (to make UNIX a stronger and more compatible platform).
    Sun's Java API wasn't open to implement for all from the start, all implementations had to be certified by Sun when used in a commercial product.
    Thats a clear cut difference. 
    By renaming it to Android, Google tried to circumvent the certification, and that's what this case is about.
    ...except that according to some of the best law professors in the US this should never have been reversed in the first place as API's should not be copyright eligible to begin with.

    Here's how Sun's CEO explained API's as they relate to Java:

    "An API is like a restaurant menu. An implementation is the food itself. So two restaurants can offer “hamburgers,” using the same word for two different dishes. The word “hamburger” lets the customer know approximately what they’re getting, it’s a useful shorthand that lets them parse menus that across many different restaurants.

    Similarly, java.security tells a developer exactly what kind of library they’re calling, because it’s similar across many different languages. The implementations of java.security in Java Standard Edition (Oracle’s proprietary implementation of Java) and in Android (created by Google) are different. But the function is the same."

    A computer program is not a hamburger.

    You compile, classify, define the interdependencies and the precedence between library functions and the final collection of header files resulting from such an intellectual effort is copyrightable.

    Nothing technically forces you to compile your functions in the file (library/class/whatever...) "java.security". Compile your functions into another header file under a different name and composition. If you don't, then you may be breaching someone else's copyright.
Sign In or Register to comment.