Hacker News Reader

Comment by phkahler | Hacker News Reader

Why have you chosen to mingle the verbatim copying of function implementations (range check) with the API definition copying? You say google "admitted it" which is a loaded term and you use that to say "This isn't a cleanroom implementation". Google conceded the direct copying of one function implementation and thought it not relevant - IIRC the jury awarded Oracle $1 for that. The rest of the function implementation ARE clean room implementation, and the API definitions are claimed by most of the industry to not be copyrightable.

If this holds up, every programming language that was not originally produced under a suitable open source license will need to be dropped because all software written in those languages will be infringing an API copyright.

View on HN

I didn't choose to mingle those things. That's just plain what the facts are. I get that you don't like them, but that's tough beans.

The case goes into discussing this directly, indicating that Google's cleanroom efforts give it evidence that it proceeded in good faith, but good faith alone does not intrinsically absolve you of admitted copying (which is an infringement) that's found elsewhere.

Now if you did an ACTUAL cleanroom and didn't take chunks that you thought were trivial, the argument to demonstrate infringement in the first place would need to be localized on the SSO level, where single-option design choices would again be exempted through the doctrine of merger, and we'd have a much different set of considerations.

As per the jury award to Oracle, you'll be happy to know they're going back to first instance to have another trial to determine the quantum. Maybe Oracle will get $1 again despite winning due precisely to the mitigating factors you've raised. Who knows. This case wasn't about that. It was about fair use.

"I get that you don't like them, but that's tough beans."

It's hard to overstate how difficult it is to separate what you want the law to be from what it is. This is why people do so badly at representing themselves, and even lawyers have this problem.

Yep. There is a ton of layperson misinformation in this thread motivated by how people 'feel' about certain issues without actually reading the decisions or understanding the tests in question. There are laypeople literally getting angry at me that the court didn't say what they think is right.

Oh well. I hope some people found it useful.

Love your work. Makes sense, thanks.

It was quite helpful, thanks for all your comments.

>> I didn't choose to mingle those things. That's just plain what the facts are. I get that you don't like them, but that's tough beans.

There are two things in play here and they are NOT the same. The one the whole world cares about is weather APIs are copyrightable. Weather Google is guilty of copying part of Oracles implementation of the code behind the API is not relevant to API copyrightability. If you can't see the distinction you don't understand software or the real core of the case and should stop trolling. If you do see the distinction, why do you keep insisting on conflating the two?

You've been pointed towards resources that answer all of the issues you've raised, but you haven't read them. Suffice it to say, the decisions do not agree that Google's behavior here is not relevant in determining how to deal with the copyright issue.

Whether or not the supreme court agrees with the IPRs affirmed in this series of cases is another question entirely, but until that comes down, nothing has really changed.

Happy reading.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com