Hacker News Reader

Comment by niftich | Hacker News Reader

In 886 F.3d 1179 (2018) [1][2], the Fed. Cir. noted that:

"62 classes (and some of their methods), spread across three packages within the Java API library, must be used. Otherwise the language itself will fail."

"On remand, the parties stipulated that only 170 lines of code were necessary to write in the Java language. It is undisputed, however, that Google copied 11,500 lines of code — 11,330 more lines than necessary to write in Java. That Google copied more than necessary weighs against fair use."

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107451649356761... [2] https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180327178

View on HN

What? Java String alone has close to 100 members and even without function bodies would be over 170 lines unless you put every method on a single line.

Here's some additional context in from a lower court: Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2016) [1]:

"Oracle has portrayed the Java programming language as distinct from the Java API library, insisting that only the language itself was free for all to use. Turns out, however, that in order to write at all in the Java programming language, 62 classes (and some of their methods), spread across three packages within the Java API library, must be used. Otherwise, the language itself will fail. The 62 "necessary" classes are mixed with "unnecessary" ones in the Java API library and it takes experts to comb them out. As a result, Oracle has now stipulated before the jury that it was fair to use the 62 "necessary" classes given that the Java programming language itself was free and open to use without a license"

"That the 62 "necessary" classes reside without any identification as such within the Java API library (rather than reside within the programming language) supports Google's contention that the Java API library is simply an extension of the programming language itself and helps explain why some view the Java API declarations as free and open for use as the programming language itself. At least to the extent of the 62 "necessary" classes, Oracle agrees."

[1] https://casetext.com/case/oracle-am-inc-v-google-inc-19#N196...

>Oracle has portrayed the Java programming language as distinct from the Java API library

I don't suppose it will persuade you that String (and many other classes) are in the Java.lang package.

> I don't suppose it will persuade you that String (and many other classes) are in the Java.lang package.

From the prior source [1], immediately below the previously-quoted text:

"Trial Exhibit 980, The Java Application Programming Interface, Volume 1, is a book that covers four packages and refers to them as the "core packages." According to the back cover of the book, these four packages "are the foundation of the Java language. These libraries include java.lang, java.io, java.util, and java.net. These are the general purpose libraries fundamental to every Java program."

[1] https://casetext.com/case/oracle-am-inc-v-google-inc-19#N196...

Here is Trial Exhibit 980:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_Distri...

TFA: Copyright law specifically excludes "systems" and "methods of operation" from copyright protection.

Sounds like a "clean room implementation" is needed, and that Google copied more than what was needed for inter-op.

If so, Google might lose the case, but the legal precedent would be you can copy apis but not implemention (unless that's the only way to implement them).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com