Hacker News Reader

Comment by moomin | Hacker News Reader

Let's slap a great big IANAL on this before I start:

The fair use decision was wrong. It relied on a fundamental misunderstanding of the term transformative where the use of the code was considered rather than merely the implementation. So Oracle has a huge case here.

Moreover, practically it doesn't matter. Even if fair use is established in this case, the door has been left wide open to hordes of API copyright trolls. If you thought patent trolls were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

If you care about the economy, the only sensible outcome would be that API surfaces aren't subject to copyright. Sadly the horse has bolted a long time ago.

View on HN

There is a long history of the API around chips not being copywritable. EX: The IBM clones needed 1 chip that at the time was not off the shelf. So, people figured out what it did then implemented that.

Method signatures would appear to represent the same situation because the chip needs to respond correctly not just respond to those inputs.

If implementing an interface is against copyright, then every Java program is infringing on Oracle's copyright.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/googles-fair-use-defense-...

I don't think that Florian Mueller is an unbiased source, he was paid by Oracle while the trial was happening

Well if you could point me to an unbiased source trying to argue the other side of this question, then sure. I really want to know both sides of this issue and it's nearly impossible to find someone separating the quintessential geek love for Google and geek hatred for Oracle from the facts of the case other than Mueller.

Honestly I'm all for liberalizing copyrights and fair use but it makes me mad to see Google going around ripping off everyone else's tech and then claiming fair use when they get sued. The fair use defense is not meant for multi-billion dollar multinational corporations that tried to shirk licensing by violating copyrights.

Furthermore I find it particularly hilarious that everyone thinks Google fights against copyright with the purest of intentions when it seems transparent that less restrictive copyright is in their direct business interests.

> it's nearly impossible to find someone separating the quintessential geek love for Google and geek hatred for Oracle from the facts of the case other than Mueller.

But you can't separate the facts from the quintessential paid love for Oracle and the paid hatred for Google of Mueller.

And exactly what tech has been ripping Google?

>But you can't separate the facts from the quintessential paid love for Oracle and the paid hatred for Google of Mueller.

Sure, which is why I was asking you for someone arguing this who was more impeccably non-biased. I realize that some opinions in arguments do not deserve being argued for, such as mass genocide, but I don't think this case is as clear cut and it's a little disturbing to me that the internet was so universally aligned with Google and against Oracle on this one. I just like seeing a little diversity of opinion, that's all.

As for what tech Google rips off, I think that's well established. They clearly had no intention of paying for a license in this case, so they wrote the code first and decided they'd deal with the consequences later. They did this when they copied the iPhone interface for Android too, and they also did it when they created Gmail Inbox which again is substantially similar to Mailbox. It's just sort of their MO.

Google has done a lot of very inventive stuff but it seems obvious to me that they walk a tight line between creating new things and copying old ones from time to time.

Microsoft Legal seems to agree with Google on this due to there's interaction with Wine emulation software which directly costs Microsoft revinue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software). Microsoft has not made public statements about Wine. However, the Microsoft Update software will block updates to Microsoft applications running in Wine. On 16 February 2005, Ivan Leo Puoti discovered that Microsoft had started checking the Windows Registry for the Wine configuration key and would block the Windows Update for any component.[95] As Puoti noted, "It's also the first time Microsoft acknowledges the existence of Wine."

That's about as unbiased as you can get IMO.

> Sure, which is why I was asking you for someone arguing this who was more impeccably non-biased.

Ars Technica, for example

> The fair use defense is not meant for multi-billion dollar multinational corporations that tried to shirk licensing by violating copyrights.

Just because a giant company wants to be paid, and another giant company could afford to pay them, doesn't mean the bill was justified. Huge companies get access to fair use too. It's the flip side of the fact that noncommercial uses are capable of infringing.

>Just because a giant company wants to be paid, and another giant company could afford to pay them, doesn't mean the bill was justified.

That's not at all what I was saying. All I was saying is that their usage is very clearly not fair use. That is all.

The problem seems to be that we're stuck with a poor decision earlier down the line -- allowing the idea that an API, rather than an implementation, can be copyrighted -- and now other courts are trying to undo the damage by making sure nobody will ever really succeed in bringing an API-infringement case.

My comment was a direct response to the idea of "shirking licensing". Yes, they wanted to avoid licensing. But that does not imply the license was ever legally necessary.

> very clearly not fair use

Very clearly? I don't think so.

FWIW here's my attempt, largely written after the appellate court made their ruling: http://www.zerobugsandprogramfaster.net/essays/x-1.html

In their ruling, the appellate court said that Oracle would likely win the fair use argument. Of course, that can change.

>Is the software world broken now? No, it's not.

Thank you so much. This is such a reasonable overview compared to all the FUD about the software world being broken overnight.

This is a very good point. Oracle (or any other platform owner) may not be suing you for license violations now, but give it time...

No because the Java license lets you do that.

If having your lawyers read the license is the requirement to using any programming language...

> Even if fair use is established in this case, the door has been left wide open to hordes of API copyright trolls

FYI, this is not actually the case; this case established no precedent for copyrightable APIs.

Because of the history of this case (it originally involved patents as well), it was appealed to the Federal Circuit, which doesn't normally handle copyright cases.

This was a gift for Oracle since the Federal Circuit loves expanding IP rights, but also helpful to the rest of us because the Federal Circuit has no jurisdiction over copyright cases. Future copyright cases will go up through whatever circuit you're in, which will not have to treat the Federal Circuit's ruling as precedent.

Anyone can make any case appealable to the Federal Circuit just by throwing in any claim arising under the patent laws. You can add an obviously bogus and unrelated patent claim in initial filings and then drop it in pre-trial and still guarantee biased CAFC jurisdiction.

You could probably force a random criminal trial into the CAFC with a little creativity. It's really easy to go to CAFC if you want to. And if you're abusing intellectual property law, you really want to because they're corrupt like a Venezuelan payday loan used car dealer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com