Google Wins Oracle Copyright Fight as Top Court Overturns Ruling (bloomberg.com) 155
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Alphabet's Google didn't commit copyright infringement when it used Oracle's programming code in the Android operating system, sparing Google from what could have been a multibillion-dollar award. From a report: The 6-2 ruling, which overturns a victory for Oracle, marks a climax to a decade-old case that divided Silicon Valley and promised to reshape the rules for the software industry. Oracle was seeking as much as $9 billion. The court said Google engaged in legitimate "fair use" when it put key aspects of Oracle's Java programming language in the Android operating system. Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said Google used "only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program." Each side contended the other's position would undercut innovation. Oracle said that without strong copyright protection, companies would have less incentive to invest the large sums needed to create groundbreaking products. Google said Oracle's approach would discourage the development of new software that builds on legacy products.
Thank God (Score:5, Informative)
This is a major victory for software. What a pathetic attempt by Oracle to copyright meaningful variable names and obvious algorithms.
Better than nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Note that the Supreme Court already affirmed that Oracle has a valid copyright on the java APIs by refusing to hear the original case. This decision just states that it was fair use for Google to use those copyrighted APIs. Fair use has to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis with expensive court cases that most developers won't be able to afford.
A quick summary:
1st District Court Case - API's aren't eligible for copyright
Federal Circuit Appeal - Yes they are
Supreme Court Appeal - Declined to hear case
2nd District Court Case - Google's application was fair use
Federal Circuit Appeal - No it wasn't
Supreme Court Appeal - Yes it was
Re:Better than nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the Supreme Court did not make any ruling on the issue of copyright validity of APIs. They ignored it arguendo saying that only two of the four tests for Fair Use was sufficient to rule in Google's favor so the validity of the original copyright is immaterial.
Technically the previous court's ruling on copywriting APIs nominally stands but it was effectively gutted by this decision.
This decision is a huge win for Fair Use as opens up lot of opportunities previously restricted under fear that commercial transformative works might be ruled as infringing.
Re: (Score:2)
You're overstating this. This isn't a huge win as much as it is not as significant of a loss as it could have been. The fact that APIs were deemed eligible for copyright and that we now need to apply fair use tests against this copyright is already devastating.
Re:Better than nothing (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that APIs were deemed eligible for copyright and that we now need to apply fair use tests against this copyright is already devastating.
You're not comprehending the ruling.
They did not deem APIs eligible for copyright. I read the ruling in less time that slashdotters are spending blathering BS about it. The 1 page abstract explains clearly; their system is to decide the least amount of stuff that they can decide. In this case, they accepted for the sake of argument that the APIs are copyrightable, and found that they're still fair use. So they did not actually decide on the APIs. Instead, they ruled that if the use of the copied portions of the API is to write new software, not to replace the API itself, then of course it is fair use. And further, that this creation of new programs is what the Constitution and the statute are talking about when they discuss the purpose of copyright being to encourage exactly these new transformative works.
What they did was give APIs very solid fair use protection, in a strong 6-2 ruling, without getting into the weeds on if APIs are copyrightable. And it seems unlikely for it to even matter if APIs are copyrightable, until they get a case involving an API-compatible replacement language. But few companies want to stab themselves in the face the way Oracle tries to, so that might not happen for a long, long time.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that they are specifically saying API's can be copyrighted. I think they chose to dodge that issue, saying that the fair use argument means they can rule narrowly on that without considering API copyrightability. i.e. "even if they were copyrightable, fair use would supersede that, so we don't need to rule on copyright". This Supreme Court seems to like such dodges - whether to leave issues open for further consideration down the road, or to dodge political bullets.
Either way, nothing preven
Re:APIs are copyrighted (Score:5, Informative)
As you said, "they accepted for the sake of argument that the APIs are copyrightable" -> and they based the fair use decision on that.
The logic is this: "If API's are NOT copyrightable then Oracle has no case; if they are, then they also have no case. Therefore there's nothing to decide, including whether APIs are copyright or not as that's immaterial in THIS case."
Re:Better than nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Reasonable minds can disagree, but the majority opinion [supremecourt.gov] appears to effectively state that using APIs is fair use, and that it always* will be. This is because, among other things, an API is different than an implementation, which is where the "hard work" lies that copyright is meant to protect. Indeed, using an API passes the "fair use" test on all four factors. It's hard to overstate how decisive this victory was (and important).
It's actually one of the better reasoned technological decisions I've read in recent memory, and it's fairly approachable. Recommend reading at least the first couple of pages.
* For values of "always" that don't include a later court revisiting the decision, a rewrite of copyright law, militant extremists overthrowing the existing government, etc.
Re:Better than nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that the Supreme Court already affirmed that Oracle has a valid copyright on the java APIs by refusing to hear the original case.
FWIW, I think that's the right decision. APIs clearly are creative works affixed in tangible medium (as much as anything digital is), so I think it's hard to argue that they're not copyrightable.
This decision just states that it was fair use for Google to use those copyrighted APIs. Fair use has to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis with expensive court cases that most developers won't be able to afford.
I think it's a little stronger than that. There wasn't anything about the details of Google v Oracle that made the court decide that implementing a copyrighted API is fair use, so it looks to me like this ruling establishes that all implementation of APIs is fair use. I expect that anyone else who tries to sue a developer for implementing an API will find their suit quickly dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. Since the discovery process that makes litigation really expensive comes after summary judgment motions, it won't even cost that much. (IANAL.)
Re: Better than nothing (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, I think that's the right decision. APIs clearly are creative works affixed in tangible medium (as much as anything digital is), so I think it's hard to argue that they're not copyrightable.
They're not works of authorship. APIs are "procedures, processes, systems, and methods of operation" which are specifically not copyrightable under 17 USC 102(b). The classic example is about a hundred years old: Author A described a method of double entry bookkeeping. Author B copied the method of described it in different words. This was held not to be infringing; you can copyright the description but not the underlying method. (Which could, perhaps, be patented).
APIs are basically the same. For functional purposes the description is part of the method ( something like DrawCircle(centerX,centerY,radius) ) requires things to go in a certain order. And there's a lot of good cases on separating out functional parts of software from nonfunctional parts, etc.
There wasn't anything about the details of Google v Oracle that made the court decide that implementing a copyrighted API is fair use, so it looks to me like this ruling establishes that all implementation of APIs is fair use.
Doesn't matter. All fair use is evaluated on a case by case basis; this ruling is perhaps influential but under different circumstances a similar case could go the other way.
APIs = creative (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not works of authorship. APIs are "procedures, processes, systems, and methods of operation" which are specifically not copyrightable...
I have sympathy for your point of view, and I am definitely glad Oracle has not won the case, yet as someone who has been coding for 3 decades, I believe there is sufficient creativity and whimsy in API design that many APIs are works of authorship and are copyrightable, given current laws and interpretations. Certainly I have seen many cases where a "bad" API pushes users away, while a "good" one attracts them, even when the ultimate functional capabilities are identical.
Given your low user ID, I suspect you have been coding for about as long as I have, so at the very least we can conclude there is room for technically savvy, experienced people to disagree on the matter.
As for my own opinions, I would not be sorry (or surprised) to see the Supreme Court agree with you someday, and rule that APIs are not copyrightable. But I would rather see Congress treat the issue and specifically exclude APIs from copyrightability in an unambiguous way. Preferably with legislation that also addresses other major problems with copyright law in the modern age -- for example abandonware.
I would also like a pony.
Re: APIs = creative (Score:2)
I believe there is sufficient creativity and whimsy in API design that many APIs are works of authorship
I'm not saying they necessarily lack creativity, though ofttimes they do (there's only so many practical ways to express many fundamental things) but that they are typically not works, they are more like inventions. Copyright doesn't cover inventions.
I would strongly advise reading over the trial court opinion from 2012 by J. Alsup found here [eff.org]
Given your low user ID, I suspect you have been coding for about as long as I have
No, I bow to your experience as a coder. I took BASIC in elementary school and a semester of C in college (happily, I finally figured out how recursion worked during t
Re: (Score:3)
They're not works of authorship.
I think you haven't spent much time creating APIs. Good APIs involve a lot of creativity -- far more than the very minimal bar required by copyright -- and a deep understanding of your audience, how they think, how they work and how they will and won't use what you're building. Obviously there are many well-trodden areas in API design, where there's little room for creativity, but there's plenty in other areas.
Spend a few years creating APIs and then watching how developers use them, learning from your mi
Re: (Score:3)
They're not works of authorship.
I think you haven't spent much time creating APIs. Good APIs involve a lot of creativity -- far more than the very minimal bar required by copyright -- and a deep understanding of your audience, how they think, how they work and how they will and won't use what you're building. Obviously there are many well-trodden areas in API design, where there's little room for creativity, but there's plenty in other areas.
The thing is, a lot of things require creativity, but requiring creativity to create something does not make it per se copyrightable. Specifically:
Re: (Score:3)
They're not works of authorship.
I think you haven't spent much time creating APIs. Good APIs involve a lot of creativity -- far more than the very minimal bar required by copyright -- and a deep understanding of your audience, how they think, how they work and how they will and won't use what you're building. Obviously there are many well-trodden areas in API design, where there's little room for creativity, but there's plenty in other areas.
The thing is, a lot of things require creativity, but requiring creativity to create something does not make it per se copyrightable.
It's a creative work, original to the author, fixed in a tangible medium.
Apparently you missed where I pointed out that it was a significantly derivative work, i.e. not original to the author.
Something protected under copyright must not be functional in nature.
That's nowhere in copyright law. Reference manuals are functional in nature, and are copyrightable and coyprighted. There is nothing in copyright law that requires the creation to be purely artistic.
A reference manual is not functional in nature. It is informational, but there is a great deal of creativity in how the information is expressed, and it is possible to express that information in many different ways without changing the utility of the manual. By contrast, it is not possible to change a function's name without breaking binary compatibility. The two are not even slightly e
Re: (Score:3)
Given your low user ID, I'm kind of surprised you don't see this. If you've been writing code for as long as you've been a slashdot user
Odd that two different people would make basically the same point. Anyway, I'm no programmer, never really was.
Good APIs involve a lot of creativity
That's not what I was saying. Patents protect functional, useful inventions; copyrights protect creative works of authorship. They don't overlap at all, although some specific objects may have some parts that are copyrightable and other parts that are patentable. Software is one of those things that embodies both, but that just results in courts chopping it up into pieces to sort them out. And
Re: (Score:2)
Your take on it would result in there being 1 murder mystery novel in the world. 1 romance novel, one supernatural thriller, etc.
Works in a single genre implement the same API in different ways.
In a given programming language, there are only so many ways to say double the value of this variable storing it back into the variable. All have been used by someone before.
If you want to specify a point in 2 dimensions, there are only two available orders to specify the coordinates. Both have been used. Wanna draw
Re: Better than nothing (Score:2)
I feel like a bad ruling here would've been a fantastic victory for INTERCAL.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you and I must think of entirely different things when we say "API". Because in my world, there are many, many ways to express an interface to a set of functionality in all but very simple cases. To take an apparently-trivial example, consider strings. There are many ways to model strings, as mutable objects, as immutable objects, as pointers, as pairs of iterators, as views, as streams... all of these models make some string usages easier and others more cumbersome. Some of them enable flexible c
Re: (Score:3)
Now, consider Berkely Sockets (listen, connect, etc). How much fun it might be if you had to rewrite your network code to go from BSD to Linux to Solaris to AIX.
Now imagine if there was one C compiler (K&R). If it doesn't support your platform (hardware and OS), too bad, learn another proprietary language. I say C because the API for strings in baked in.
Consider how much of Java looks a LOT like C++. Imagine no Java at all because of APIs looking too much like C++.
Why not take it to the next level, one
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that anyone else who tries to sue a developer for implementing an API will find their suit quickly dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.
That's the problem with fair use. It is an affirmative defense.
An affirmative defense that works in summary judgment isn't so bad. And by making clear that API implementation is Fair Use "as a matter of law" (they used that phrase), it looks to me like SCOTUS made those summary judgments a slam dunk. After a few of them, assuming they even happen, judges are going to start giving the stink eye to any plaintiff who brings an API infringement case.
Re: (Score:2)
Just nicely shows how completely and utterly broken the legal system is.
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling leaves the situation ambiguous, but Congress could pass a law to clarify it. Of course, a poorly written law could muddy it up even more.
The best outcome would be a statutory law clearly saying that copyrights do not apply to anything used as an interface: APIs, printer cartridge codes, etc.
The ruling was 6-2. The dissenters were Alito and Thomas. Barrett did not participate because she joined the court after the case was heard.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand how US courts work. When the Supreme Court declines to accept a case, it doesn't mean anything to any other case but that case. It does not imply they agreed with it, it does not confer validity on the precedents used.
For example, they typically do not accept a case unless there is a "circuit split," where the different appeals regions have come to different rulings. Sometimes, some lower court precedent survives for decades, because the circuits that have ruled all agreed, and then whe
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that I can't sue people for my use of
int i; variable for my iterator in loops.
how about me using "retval" as my default variable to handle the Return value.
Perhaps while handing graphics I use X and Y to graph my concordant.
For functional coding, I tend to use mathematical and shorter variable names and functions.
For Procedural coding, I tend to use Small words to explain what I am doing.
For OO coding, I will use longer more descriptive language with each word separated by a change in Case.
While al
Re: (Score:2)
how about me using "retval" as my default variable to handle the Return value.
If I was king that would be punishable by pillorying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Thank God (Score:2)
What does this mean for LGPL/GPL?
I always though the claim that linking to GPL code makes something a derivative work is too much wishful thinking from GPL advocates. I don't see how that can be defended after this, so what use is the LGPL now.
If copying an interface is fair use, using it has to be, or Android code would still be infringing. If I ship non-GPL code that links to GPL libraries, is it going to come down to whether I provided a specific implementation of that library with my code vs. let the
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle knew they couldn't get them on straight-out copyright infringement since Google used the old Harmony codebase. Judge Alsup called BS on them claiming copyright on min(a, b), but then they tried copyright on the APIs. The copyright-friendly Court of Appeals rolled over for Oracle, but as often happens, SCOTUS said their ruling was an overreach.
Apparently Justice Breyer compared this to copyrighting QWERTY. Reverse engineering survives to see another day.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the dissent carefully ... Justice Thomas makes good points. As much as I agree with the sentiment, and the result ... Congress really should fix the law ... not have the Court interpret it as it should have been written.
Java lives! (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is for patents, not copyright.
Re:Java lives! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dead wrong. This was settled in 2014 [forbes.com]. There's no copyright laches, just a statutorily-limited look-back period.
Re: (Score:3)
No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Java lives! (Score:2)
Yes but IBM could argue they thought APIs where not copyrightable and it was not until Oracle brought the case and won that they knew that Oracle where infringing, which would have been today.
Re: (Score:2)
Laches (Score:5, Informative)
I think the term you're looking for is estoppel by laches [wikipedia.org]. When a plaintiff takes a prejudicially unreasonable delay between becoming aware of an infringement and filing suit, the court bars suit for back damages but doesn't bar ongoing damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Laches (Score:2)
Yes but everyone thought APIs where not copyrightable. So there would have been no unreasonable delay. Had Oracle prevailed today IBM could easily argue today was when they became aware.
Re: Java lives! (Score:2)
The statute of limitations for copyright is three years from when the claim accrued per 17 USC 507(b).
The trick is when does the claim accrue? Most courts have what's called a discovery rule for copyright suits. The claim doesn't accrue until the copyright holders knows or should know of the infringement. But recently in Rotkiske v. Klemm [justia.com] the Supreme Court held very strongly against discovery rules, writing that Congress can choose whether or not to implement them and if they chose not to, courts shouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Java lives! (Score:2)
Well, if it's a fair use, it is not infringing. (Though nothing is a fair use unless it is a prima facie infringement; it's a an argument of last resort)
But as I said, the trend is to start the clock when it happens, regardless of whether the copyright holder knows about it or not or should have known about it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Untrue. Each new copy is a new act of infringement. U.S. Copyright law limits the look-back period for damages to three years, but the Led Zeppelin case already showed that you can bring a claim for continuing infringement based upon infringements that started much longer ago [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Java would just be the start. Companies large and small would file suits arguing that anything setting up compatibility on the basis of APIs violates copyright. The industry would grind to a halt under the weight of litigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, it would just mean that you should check your license before using an API. All of the major programming languages come with a license (including Java, and even Microsoft APIs), so you should be fine as far as that goes.
Even with this ruling, you should check your license for any API you use, that's just good sanitation. Otherwise you risk being in a fair-use copyright case which might not go the same way.
Re: (Score:3)
For a new project, sure. But there are projects that go back many years, even decades, where this could become a sudden problem because until Oracle filed against Google, almost no one thought there was an issue with reusing declarations. It would be nice to have an explicit, statutory exemption in copyright law, but I don't trust Congress to do that correctly or to not break other things along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
So for example, I want to implement simple drawing routines, ALL I HAVE TO DO is engage a lawfirm to spend a few days deliberating the licenses of existing drawing libraries, and periodically review my code with them.
That shouldn't be too burdensome for a high school student learning programming. Probably just cost a couple days lunch money.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of us had already abandoned Java.
Python, NodeJS/JS. Are rather popular alternatives to Java especially for the back end.
If I need to compile, then I would go with C/C++ or .NET. The thing is Java Advantage from the 1990's is greatly loss.
Modern IDE makes programming in whatever language rather easy, allowing you to navigate down the OO tree for a variable with handy mini documentation to explain how to use it. So where C++ may have been unwieldy it just as easy to code today as Java.
Interpreted lang
Re: (Score:2)
It's really too bad that Google didn't take the opportunity to implement a new API, say "Arabica", and put it in the public domain along with a translator from Arabica to Java.
Re: (Score:2)
I predict that Oracle is still about to shoot themselves in the foot.
If they cannot monetize it the way that they want, they might just go ahead and kill it, encouraging their licensers to migrate to something else that they will probably have ready before the end of 2022, and setting a future Java EOL date a few years out.
I'll tell you what undercut innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
It's fucking copyrights.
Someone has to pay those high-power lawyers at some point. That's money down the drain that doesn't benefit anybody useful or foster any innovation.
Re:I'll tell you what undercut innovation (Score:5, Funny)
The Scene at Sun Headquarters when Oracle came calling:
Oracle Lawyers: So this Java, we heard a lot about it. Is it good software?
Sun Lawyers: Ya, fer sure!!
Oracle Lawyers: And popular?
Sun Lawyers: You betcha, the bees knees.
Oracle Lawyers (now excited): So there must be big money to be made with it, yes?
Sun Lawyers (tears in their eyes): Big, Big Money, oh yes, you'll have no trouble at all making money from it.
Oracle Lawyers: Uncle Larry will be so proud of us!!
Sun Lawyers (now giddy with relief): You won't believe our good fortune.
Sun Lawyers leave with Big Red Check in Hand: Hey Mr. McNealy, you'll never guess what we sold...Java!
Scott Mc.: Java? You sold Java? You guys ought to be in the Lawyer Hall of Fame. Who's the rube? No, lemme guess, it had to be Uncle Larry.
Re:I'll tell you what undercut innovation (Score:5, Informative)
The reason that Oracle bought Sun was because at the time, Sun Microsystems were basically bankrupt. They had lost their hardware edge and companies were abandoning the Solaris platform as though it had suddenly become toxic. Unfortunately for Oracle, the combination of "Oracle on Solaris" was *the* configuration to run Oracle's RDBMS for 95% of commercial customers, so the death of Solaris and Sun hardware would have been a crippling - though not fatal - blow to Oracle Corp.
To give you an idea of just how heavily these two products were integrated, on Solaris you didn't format partitions for Oracle, you left them raw, and the database managed partitioning and formatting of drives to its own design, optimized for performance.
As part of the deal, Oracle inherited JAVA. Since Oracle hadn't bought Sun for JAVA, they were a bit more bullish about going after potential revenue streams, hence the first court case. The judge for that round of proceedings, William Alsupp, went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that he had a thorough understanding of the issues at hand, up to and including teaching himself how to write programs, in JAVA, to understand the arguments.
It's a moot point now, as pavon notes higher up the thread, but when the 1st District Court of Appeals over-turned his initial ruling, that was a very significant point in chilling software innovation. SCOTUS should have over-turned it: that they refused to hear the case was a huge mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
on Solaris you didn't format partitions for Oracle, you left them raw, and the database managed partitioning and formatting of drives to its own design, optimized for performance.
Isn't this true on Linux as well if you use ASM for the database data volumes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle bought Sun for Sun's customers (Score:5, Interesting)
When a big company buys another big company, they generally don't buy it for the technology; they buy it for the customer base. Sun had a ton of customers...really large customers...and buy buying Sun Oracle was able to exert even more leverage inside those customers.
In any case, Sun and Oracle had a lot of overlap. Until the rise of Linux computers Sun shops tended to be Oracle shops as well. Oracle on Sun was pretty much the default configuration for Oracle for a large number of Oracle customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyrights in and of themselves isn't a bad thing. They provide a way for an artist or author to get paid for their work.
Oracle has every right to copyright the internals of Java. But trying to retain the rights to the API itself would be like Honda trying to prevent aftermarket car parts being made, that can fit in a Honda car. If you can make a power steering pump that fits and works as specified, you are free to make your power steering pump and sell it for Honda cars.
Copyrights help little guys, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Copyrights in and of themselves isn't a bad thing. They provide a way for an artist or author to get paid for their work.
I agree in theory, but the duration of copyrights has made a good thing into a bad thing. I'm happy with J R R Tolkien being paid for his work; I'm not happy that his heirs will control it ~forever.
Finally over! (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy about the outcome but I'm even happier this long saga has come to an end.
BTW, I don't think Google is totally innocent in this long affair, but copyrighting APIs is a "cure" that is far worse than the disease.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't get your hopes up just yet. It's been remanded, not dismissed. You can bet that Oracle will look for an angle to continue fighting this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Finally over! (Score:3)
This isn't necessarily the end of it. Who knows whether, if after this gets remanded back to the lower court, Oracle files some other appeal over some procedural matter or some other bullshit. This is Oracle we're talking about, if lawsuits were an industry then they would be the top player. Never put any dirty legal tactic beneath them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He Has Risen (Score:2)
PJ (Score:3)
I imagine PJ is smiling right now while reading the ruling.
I would have loved to see what groklaw's coverage would have been like on today's news.
Thanks Trump (Score:3)
Thank you Trump for using your impeccable judgment and hiring Gorsuch and Kavanaugh who helped make this possible.
I read the pathetic dissent by Clarence Thomas, it was stupid. He disingenuously acts like all of Android's success is from Google copying and pasted 11,000+ lines of code (never pointing out that those 11,000 lines are not continuous) and that those 11,000 lines are a major part of Android (which is tens of millions of lines of code). What was "copied" was some names of the methods. I mean, Android calling methods that do sorting using the name "sort" .. what the heck else would you call it? He even acts like Oracle (actually it was Sun Microsystems -- Oracle bought them much later) could have made an OS that was more popular than Android. We know they couldn't .. Sun Microsystems sort of tried, and failed. Second, Sun Microsystems didn't care about Android "copying" its code. Java was adopted by the industry because Sun made it open. So open, that Microsoft even tried to make their own buggy version called J++ and Sun Microsystems did not care about "code copying" .. but did sue them for trademark infringement only (because Microsoft's version was so buggy it tarnished the reputation of Java).
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft even tried to make their own buggy version called J++ and Sun Microsystems did not care about "code copying" .. but did sue them for trademark infringement only (because Microsoft's version was so buggy it tarnished the reputation of Java).
Didn't this "buggy" version of MS's JVM lay the groundwork for the .NET CLR though, which is typically regarded as pretty good if you have to use a MS ecosystem?
Re: Thanks Trump (Score:2)
.net core is pretty good, and is cross platform. Overall, given a choice between starting a new project with either C# or Java, C# would win every single time. There really is no good reason to choose java over .net unless you really need compatibility with some other java project.
Re: Thanks Trump (Score:2)
I read the pathetic dissent by Clarence Thomas, it was stupid.
Well, in his defense, Justice Thomas is pathetic and stupid, so what more do you expect out of him?
Wrong (Score:2)
The assertion "when it used Oracle's programming code" is flat wrong, and /. should be ashamed of itself for repeating nonsense from ignoramus journalists. As I understand it, the suit was about using the same API as Oracle, not using their code. One could say that scotus said using the same API is not the same as using the same code, but the statement in the piece is just plain wrong. One could say that scotus ruled that Google did not actually use Oracle's code, but not the assertion made by the author
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically speaking an API is written as code. The court did not say Google used Oracle's source code. For example the basic Java main API:
public void static main(args []) {}
Why didn't the slashdot post (Score:2)
have any mention of API's? The whole software industry was watching this because it would have affected almost everyone.
Thomas & Alito dissented (Score:3)
I swear, whenever there's a god awful ruling I can always count on Thomas & Alito to make it. I'm hoping they get replaced soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Barret couldn't rule on it, but given her history I would expect her to dissent.
I swear, whenever there's a god awful ruling I can always count on Thomas & Alito to make it. I'm hoping they get replaced soon.
I do not know much about Barret yet, but I totally agree about Thomas & Alito. To be fair, though, RBG was a major copyright maximalist -- so I would have expected to see her on the dissenting side of this case with those two clowns.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the dissent; it is actually pretty well informed. Thomas and Alioto objected to the justices not recognizing that Congress did not differentiate an API from code in extending copyright protections. One article I found: https://lawandcrime.com/suprem... [lawandcrime.com]
The bigger issue is why Congress afforded copyright protection to APIs, or why Thomas and Alioto believe they did.
Grammar error in dissent (Score:2)
Just to reinforce the low opinions of Thomas's work, here is an embarrassing usage error in Thomas' official dissent:
Regardless, Google fairs no better on transformative use.
-from near the beginning of Part C
(For non-English speakers, the word should have been fares, not fairs)
The battle for the soul of Java (Score:2)
It is funny that while Oracle owns Java, they are the ones not acting in its interest.
And this ruling will make sure that copyright cannot be used to abuse APIs for a long time. If anything, Oracle lost bigger by letting it go this far.
When are the old fogeys retiring? (Score:2)
I am hoping some philanthropist offers Thomas and Alito $20 million alongside free dementia care for life for them to retire. Surely they can proudly retire knowing that Satan is happy with the amazing services rendered over the years well above and beyond what could be expected
At some point we have to decide whether someone with late stage Alzheimerâ(TM)s and dementia is fit to be making actual Supreme court rulings. Seems they would be better off given a crayon and scrap of paper to write rulings al
You forgot, they did violate copyright. (Score:2)
Hey! They did take the 9 line rangeCheck routine. That put them to market months ahead of schedule and saved millions in development cost.
Just because any high school student can do it means nothing.
Oracle inventor of Java... (Score:2)
Oracle said that without strong copyright protection, companies would have less incentive to invest the large sums needed to create groundbreaking products
Says the company that just bought Java as opposed to the "create" they argue. If anything Oracle has just picked up where Sun once was with directing the JCP, which is to start offering features found elsewhere. Initially, Sun focused mostly on EE to reach parity with Spring, Oracle has taken the position to aim more broadly. Pros and cons of that approach aside, they are merely a leadership for JCP as opposed to those working the trenches. Oracle's ego is without bounds if they feel they are actually "
Re: Oracle inventor of Java... (Score:2)
Perl, Python, and PHP spring to mind as languages created and given away as free not by corporations. C#, Rust and Go spring to mind as languages created by corporations and given away for free. Oracle's arguments in that regard are hokum
Re: (Score:2)
James Gosling said exactly this when he left Oracle 11 years ago:
During the integration meetings between Sun and Oracle, where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer's eyes sparkle.
https://www.cnet.com/news/java... [cnet.com]
Nobody in the Java biz at the time was surprised. Sun was hemorrhaging money and Oracle grabbed them in order to wield the patents like a club.
Re: (Score:2)
It was widely reported at the time that Uncle Larry had initially only wanted the software side of the business i.e. Java, but McNealy & co. insisted on an all-or-nothing deal. I imagine they expected to license Java ME to all the handset companies, but then Android gave away the OS in return for mining user info. Given all the support Oracle's given the legacy-Sun portfolio since [/s] it's clear what the plan was.
Re: Fair Use (Score:2)
Traditionally the belief was that Fair Use was only for non-commercial usage, but obviously that isn't the case as much...and the actual statute says that it's a case-by-case basis ie: commercial use isn't by default not fair use.
Welcome to the nineties, as we used to say... in the early nineties.
Accordingly, the mere fact that a use is educational and not for profit does not insulate it from a finding of infringement, any more than the commercial character of a use bars a finding of fairness. If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrativeuses listed in the preamble paragraph of s. 107, including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities "are generally conducted for profit in this country." Harper & Row, supra, at 592 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Congress could not have intended such a rule, which certainly is not inferable from the common law cases, arising as they did from the world of letters in which Samuel Johnson could pronounce that "[n]o man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." 3 Boswell's Life of Johnson 19 (G. Hill ed. 1934).
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
Re:Thomas and Alito (Score:2)
I would really suggest reading the dissenting opinion, or at least a summary of it. I am no fan of Thomas, but he seems to have a pretty logical grasp of the issue. His biggest complaint about the majority opinion was that they failed to address the issue of if the code was copyrightable (as an API), and that Google’s actions were a retailation for not getting to licensing terms with Oracle, and further that Google’s actions were unnecessary, as demonstrated by Apple and others.
The court not a