Google staves off Oracle code copyright claim

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    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.
    Did you take the time to read the brief I linked in the previous post? If not you should take 5 minutes to do so and then comment again on why you think API's should be eligible for copyright protection. It's an interesting discussion since the Appeals Court decision was the one that broke with established precedent wasn't it?
    https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/13/google_v_oracle_cert_pet_ip_profs_amicus.pdf
    edited May 2016 morrolan
  • Reply 42 of 61
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,527member
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    The case lasted from 1997 to 2001 with great fanfare in the computing media at that time.
  • Reply 43 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    The case lasted from 1997 to 2001 with great fanfare in the computing media at that time.
    Well, OK. So what was this precedent you mentioned? There was no trial and Microsoft was a licensed Java partner. IMHO there's no comparison to that lawsuit and this one but maybe I'm missing it so please explain where/how if I did.


    edited May 2016 morrolan
  • Reply 44 of 61
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,527member
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    Did you take the time to read the brief I linked in the previous post? If not you should take 5 minutes to do so and then comment again on why you think API's should be eligible for copyright protection. It's an interesting discussion since the Appeals Court decision was the one that broke with established precedent wasn't it?
    https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/13/google_v_oracle_cert_pet_ip_profs_amicus.pdf
    I don't need that. I am more experienced in programming than any of the involved lawyers to know that APIs are the result of a though intellectual work and as such, fairly copyrightable.

    Which are not copyrightable are a linear collection or descriptions of facts. API is not a linear collection of facts. It is a complex structure which constitutes the complete skeleton of your copyrightable programming work. If an API didn't exist, you had to build it manually from scratch. If you build it from scratch, then you own the entire copyright. If you don't build it from scratch but duplicate someone else's work, then you may be breaching some copyright.
    ronn
  • Reply 45 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    Did you take the time to read the brief I linked in the previous post? If not you should take 5 minutes to do so and then comment again on why you think API's should be eligible for copyright protection. It's an interesting discussion since the Appeals Court decision was the one that broke with established precedent wasn't it?
    https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/13/google_v_oracle_cert_pet_ip_profs_amicus.pdf
    I don't need that. I am more experienced in programming than any of the involved lawyers to know that APIs are the result of a though intellectual work and as such, fairly copyrightable.

    Which are not copyrightable are a linear collection or descriptions of facts. API is not a linear collection of facts. It is a complex structure which constitutes the complete skeleton of your copyrightable programming work. If an API didn't exist, you had to build it manually from scratch. If you build it from scratch, then you own the entire copyright. If you don't build it from scratch but duplicate someone else's work, then you may be breaching some copyright.
    How would you know it wouldn't benefit you to read it? Lawyers didn't write the brief. The ones who did probably know a few things you may not yet. Personally I don't consider myself so darn smart that reading can't teach me anything. 
    edited May 2016 cnocbuimorrolantechlover
  • Reply 46 of 61
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,949member
    It's funny, except for a few people on here you really can't find anyone anywhere rooting for Oracle. 
    In the dark ages, no one was saying that people labelled as witches shouldn't be burned at the stake either.  So how is 'no one else is doing it' a valid argument?

    Naturally people who want to buy the cheapest phones possible, and who don't know/don't care about the tech industry, will blindly defend Google for what they did because it helped get cheaper smartphones into their pockets (no per-phone licensing fee, lower R&D costs to create Android).

    It's the people working in the tech industry who don't think things through who really bother me (i.e. what is the effect of tech companies who try to avoid paying for R&D and skirt around licensing agreements on the industry?).  Mindlessly believing in open source but missing the fact that, at the end of the business day, it's all about cutting labour costs.
    edited May 2016 Habi_tweetronn
  • Reply 47 of 61
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    cnocbui said:
    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? 
    Does it involve a conspiracy, by any chance?
    singularity
  • Reply 48 of 61
    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.


    BUT, an API isn't a restaurant menu, and no you can not copy another restaurants menu and just change the restaurant logo. Its a crime of copyright.... Where do you people read up on copyright / patent law?

    BTW you can create that API in about 1000000 ways to do the same but you couldn' t use the same API calls for the same functionality, The only thing here is that Google needed JAVA programmers and not "Android" programmers that where available directly...
    edited May 2016 ronn
  • Reply 49 of 61
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 3,949member
    Going to be so many pissed off haters when this gets overtuned and Oracle finally prevails. By that time the amount Oracle will get will have increased even more.

    Google hasn't won anything - all they've done is delayed the arrival of the executioner.

    And to the commenter above who thinks nobody supports Oracle - are you blind? Most companies (including enemies of Oracle) support Oracle. Only a few outliers support Google. And two of them are essentially the same (EFF) attempting to look like separate entities.
    ronn
  • Reply 50 of 61
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    Did you take the time to read the brief I linked in the previous post? If not you should take 5 minutes to do so and then comment again on why you think API's should be eligible for copyright protection. It's an interesting discussion since the Appeals Court decision was the one that broke with established precedent wasn't it?
    https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/13/google_v_oracle_cert_pet_ip_profs_amicus.pdf
    Well, you could read those example cases more specifically and think about why they dont apply here....
    ronn
  • Reply 51 of 61
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 3,949member
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    Did you take the time to read the brief I linked in the previous post? If not you should take 5 minutes to do so and then comment again on why you think API's should be eligible for copyright protection. It's an interesting discussion since the Appeals Court decision was the one that broke with established precedent wasn't it?
    https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/13/google_v_oracle_cert_pet_ip_profs_amicus.pdf

    APIs individually are not eligible for copyright protection. This is how you can spot the idiots who know nothing about coding when they post comments like "I'm going to copyright max(a,b) and then sue everyone in the world who has an API for determining which number is bigger". This is not what this case is about. How many times do you have to read the text "structure, sequence and organization" to realize they are talking about the ENTIRE COLLECTION of API's used in Java. The collected work, so to speak. Nobody is going to have to worry about implementing an API someone else created, despite the sky-is-falling predictions people make.

    I did read that link you provided (some time ago) and they are wrong. They are trying to imply that a ruling in this case somehow sets precedent when it doesn't. These types of copyright cases are all going to be decided on an individual basis. So bringing up previous cases and comparing them to this case is pointless. They also bring up interoperability in that brief, which also shows they are trying to confuse the issue. "Android" Java is NOT compatible with "Regular" Java, so that argument is meaningless. If it was compatible, then Google would have an easy win for fair use. Google forked Java, which is ironic considering Google's own strict requirements regarding forking Android itself.

    Even worse, the idiots (yes they are idiots) that wrote that brief are playing the "doom & gloom" card stating a win for Oracle would set off a series of litigation over APIs. This is simply not the case, and they are using fear to try and affect the courts decision.

    Oh, and let's not forget the outcome of this. The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case. So they evidently didn't think this brief (along with the other arguments/briefs) carried much weight at all.
  • Reply 52 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    Did you take the time to read the brief I linked in the previous post? If not you should take 5 minutes to do so and then comment again on why you think API's should be eligible for copyright protection. It's an interesting discussion since the Appeals Court decision was the one that broke with established precedent wasn't it?
    https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/13/google_v_oracle_cert_pet_ip_profs_amicus.pdf


    Even worse, the idiots (yes they are idiots) that wrote that brief are playing the "doom & gloom" card stating a win for Oracle would set off a series of litigation over APIs. This is simply not the case, and they are using fear to try and affect the courts decision.
    Oh, I agree the sky won't fall if Oracle wins out. As one of the leading voices for patent reform, Charles Duan at Public Knowledge, said about API lawsuits: "We're not going to see 50 lawsuits filed tomorrow," he says, arguing that "most computer programmers are reasonable" and don't view APIs as something to be copyrighted.

    edited May 2016
  • Reply 53 of 61
    curt12curt12 Posts: 41member
    If it was compatible, then Google would have an easy win for fair use. Google forked Java, which is ironic considering Google's own strict requirements regarding forking Android itself.


    As long as you don't call your fork Android(TM), Google can't do a thing about it. Unlike Microsoft, who got sued by Sun for calling their implementation Java(tm) when it didn't satisfy the requirements for Java(tm), Android does not make use of the Java(tm) brand.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 54 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    Did you take the time to read the brief I linked in the previous post? If not you should take 5 minutes to do so and then comment again on why you think API's should be eligible for copyright protection. It's an interesting discussion since the Appeals Court decision was the one that broke with established precedent wasn't it?
    https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/13/google_v_oracle_cert_pet_ip_profs_amicus.pdf

    APIs individually are not eligible for copyright protection. This is how you can spot the idiots ...

    Even worse, the idiots (yes they are idiots) that wrote that brief
    I doubt the 40 law professors and distinguished legal scholars haven't been called idiots before. They teach kids and kids are wont to name-call. I don't think you'd hurt their feelings, but I do think perhaps you'd feel undermanned if arguing intellectual property law with any one of them.
    edited May 2016 cnocbuicurt12morrolan
  • Reply 55 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    Going to be so many pissed off haters ...
    There's already "pissed off haters" after yesterday jury finding in Google's favor. As you noted they'll also be some on "the other side" if/when this gets overturned. That's the internet.
    singularitycurt12staticx57
  • Reply 56 of 61
    focherfocher Posts: 637member
    It's a tough week of Sophie's Choices.

    Google vs Oracle
    Thiel vs Gawker
  • Reply 57 of 61
    gatorguy said:
    ...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.


    BUT, an API isn't a restaurant menu, and no you can not copy another restaurants menu and just change the restaurant logo. Its a crime of copyright.... Where do you people read up on copyright / patent law?

    BTW you can create that API in about 1000000 ways to do the same but you couldn' t use the same API calls for the same functionality, The only thing here is that Google needed JAVA programmers and not "Android" programmers that where available directly...
    Don't you get it?
    Thats what "transformative" means!
    Giggle transformed millions of Java programmers into minions of Ann Droid.
    Programmers! Programmers! Programmers! Right?

    It is my fevered hope, but who can say in the crazy world we live in,
    that a certain judge who got taken to the woodshed,
    but did not learn his lesson,
    is about to find out what happens when he really pisses off his betters.
    ronnHabi_tweet
  • Reply 58 of 61
    Only 11,000 lines....
    hmmmmmm
    but these were lines not really code, just names.
    11,000 commands !!!!
    How many commands does Ann Droid need to marshall her minions?
    Oh wait, Giggle has those special commands 
    copywrited but not patented.
    No they are TRADE SECRETS.
    and NO since not licensed left or right,
    Giggle will not share back to the "open" community.
    ronn
  • Reply 59 of 61
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 746member
    apple ][ said:
    It seems as if big tech companies with plenty of cash can do whatever the hell that they please, and they feel that they are above the law.

    They can copy, steal and rape other products, and what's the worst that will happen? They get sued? Big freakin' deal. By the time that the court cases are decided, many years will have passed, and the products that they've stolen are no longer current, and they'll have pocketed an enormous amount of profit. Just look at all of the iPhone copying that Samsung has done.

    If any and all methods are acceptable, then it would be hilarious if some new company comes along that has even worse morals than Google and Samsung, and that company employs methods such as arson, industrial espionage and even the occasional assassination. As long as they are able to hide their crimes, then what's the problem? All's fair in love & war & business too. :# 
    it's called the petroleum industry.
  • Reply 60 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    gatorguy said:
    ...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.


    BUT, an API isn't a restaurant menu, and no you can not copy another restaurants menu and just change the restaurant logo. Its a crime of copyright.... Where do you people read up on copyright / patent law?

    BTW you can create that API in about 1000000 ways to do the same but you couldn' t use the same API calls for the same functionality, The only thing here is that Google needed JAVA programmers and not "Android" programmers that where available directly...
    Don't you get it?
    Thats what "transformative" means!
    Giggle transformed millions of Java programmers into minions of Ann Droid.
    Programmers! Programmers! Programmers! Right?

    It is my fevered hope, but who can say in the crazy world we live in,
    that a certain judge who got taken to the woodshed,
    but did not learn his lesson,
    is about to find out what happens when he really pisses off his betters.
    The European Court of Justice would support Google wouldn't they, even tho it's obvious they're no friend of theirs. The EU's SCOTUS equivalent says API's do not meet the requirements for copyright protection. It's readily apparent that the broad agreement you think there is on API's and copyright just doesn't exist.  Even the developer community has not traditionally considered API's subject to copyright. nor do many of them now.
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150817/11362131983/yes-appeals-court-got-basically-everything-wrong-deciding-apis-are-covered-copyright.shtml#comments
    Be sure to read the comments if you wish to see what a cross-section of programmers think. 

    TechCrunch published an article a few months ago that startups and developers might wish to read as a cautionary tale. 
    http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/03/copyright-captures-apis-a-new-caution-for-developers/
    edited May 2016 singularity
Sign In or Register to comment.