Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spivak | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it would be infringement. The main difference between WINE and Android is where the interoperability integration points are.

WINE is using the Windows names for the purposes of allowing Windows programs to run. This is a case where a judge would easily grant fair-use because you have to use the API surface area to provide compatibility for existing programs.

Android is using the Java names for the purposes of allowing existing Java developers to be productive, not so that existing Java programs can run.

View on HN

>I don't think it would be infringement. The main difference between WINE and Android is where the interoperability integration points are. [...] Android is using the Java names for the purposes of allowing existing Java developers to be _productive_, not so that existing Java programs can run.

>Since Oracle's claim is that Google's use of the Java APIs wasn't to provide compatibility to existing software written in Java but to have a _familiar_ language for Java developers it becomes a novel but normal copyright case.

You're making a distinction between "interopability" and "end user familiarity". But Lotus also sued Borland on the basis of "familiarity" of the menu "names and structure" and they lost. The Supreme Court's 4-4 split decision left the lower appeals court's ruling intact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dev._Corp._v._Borland_In...

It's not just about "developer interoperability" vs "program interoprability". Implementing Java APIs means that entire libraries can run.

Sure you might not be able to take a legacy SWING Windows Java app and run it on android, but you can run entire libraries in your android app. It absolutely _is_ about interoperability in both cases. Perhaps to varying degrees

Correct, and I was always surprised that Google didn't argue this point more. In my Android apps I've used Java libraries that were created years before Android even existed, and they work perfectly. And vice versa; I've reused code I originally wrote for Android in a Java desktop app with zero changes.

You are making a distinction when there isn't one from the legal opinion perspective.

There is actually, and the court argued as such: if Android had been compatible with Java programs, Google could have claimed a fair-use exemption. Since Android can't run many Java programs, by design, they can't claim such an exemption.

WINE could very likely win a legal battle through claiming a fair-use exemption (of course, if the case fails, they wouldn't have to go to court at all).

Why is the distinction between "runs with zero changes" and "runs with minimal changes"—or even just "runs with fewer changes"—so critical?

Where is the line? Is Android "compatible" with Java programs if those programs need to be recompiled first, but no source edits are necessary? What if source edits are necessary, but can be automated? What if recompiling isn't necessary, but you need to hex edit the binary?

"Compatibility" is a spectrum, and I'd say Android falls within that range.

Because the actual implementation isn't what the courts are looking for. This is a case about Google's intention for copying the Java API. Oracle is claiming that Google copied their API because it was easier than designing a new language; Google is claiming that they did it for interoperability reasons.

There is no distinction between the two because these things are presented as evidence of Google's intent, it's not proof. There's no line. Google's case would be much stronger is Android-Java could run most Java software unmodified but it doesn't mean they'll lose just because it's not true.

Thanks, that's interesting! It seems reasonable—if Google was explicitly trying to enable compatibility, that should be allowed, whereas if they were just trying to save a buck, that should be illegal.

Of course, in reality Google's decision was probably a little of both, right? They selected a technology based on a wide range of factors, including development costs and compatibility.

I'm still concerned that a decision in Oracle's favor would have a massive chilling effect on everyone else. All companies want to limit their potential liabilities. How can you prove in advance that you selected a language or API for the sake of compatibility, even when that is in fact the driving factor?

> Of course, in reality Google's decision was probably a little of both, right?

I wouldn't think that Google's development costs were part of the decision. There aren't that many Java APIs -- as the article says, it's ~11k lines of definitions -- so Oracle is seeking ~$818k per line. Assuming Google's lawyers predicted that there was some risk of a lawsuit like this, any engineering costs associated with redesigning the APIs would just be negligible compared to the legal risk.

One could argue that it is quite difficult to design a good API, but Java's APIs are frankly full of mistakes: Date/Calendar, immutable collections with no type safety, "optional" methods like Iterator.remove, etc. It wouldn't take a team of world-class engineers to come up with something better with the benefit of hindsight.

On the other hand, developer familiarity and compatibility with existing Java libraries could have had a significant impact on Android's adoption. I think that was what justified the legal risks.

"Android chief Andy Rubin said java.lang APIs are copyrighted in 2006 email"

https://www.cnet.com/news/android-chief-andy-rubin-said-java...

"Copyright and consequences: Google’s Andy Rubin defends Android to jury"

> "We've been over a bunch of these, and we think they all suck," Lindholm wrote. "We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for java under the terms we need."

Many libraries comes from Java world are able to use by copying API. So saved lines is not just ~11k.

> This is a case about Google's intention for copying the Java API.

Not centrally. The copyrightability issue is absolutely not about Google’s intentions (and if Oracle loses that, it's game over), and Google’s intentions are relevant to one half of one of four fair use factors (the “purpose and character of use” factor) which are weighed together (it's not a pass-fail each factor test) in the fair use portion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com