US Justice Department Urges Supreme Court Not To Take Up Google v. Oracle

New submitter Areyoukiddingme writes: The Solicitor General of the Justice Department has filed a response to the US Supreme Court's solicitation of advice regarding the Google vs. Oracle ruling and subsequent overturning by the Federal Circuit. The response recommends that the Federal Circuit ruling stand, allowing Oracle to retain copyright to the Java API.

Comments

Clean room implementation?

[ardentsoap]

So, I can't make an API that mimics theirs because copyright?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[kennykb]

Yes. Exactly.

It's all about the term of copyright versus the term of patent. Patent lasts only twenty years at present, while copyright is effectively perpetual (whenever Pooh and Mickey might enter the public domain, the legislators fix it). If copyright governs interfaces, that part of the law will keep the government from stealing IP away from its rightful owners after twenty years.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[XanC]

Can they make Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS illegal retroactively, and take back much of the PC revolution?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Richard_at_work]

Doesn't the Linux kernel group hold a very similar stance in that you cannot use the kernels internal APIs without breaching copyright and thus falling under the GPL as a derivative work?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[The Rizz]

If copyright governs interfaces, that part of the law will keep the government from stealing IP away from its rightful owners after twenty years.

You mean stop government from returning it to the rightful owners. The public (and public domain) are the rightful owners of all information and works - copyright/patents just give exclusive use for a time.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[paskie]

Right now they are talking about if the API is actually copyrighted. If it is, there is still a (good?) chance that fair use will allow you to reimplement it anyway; but that's going to be another court case, likely.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[jandrese]

If the laws we have now were in place back then the computer revolution wouldn't have happened. We would still be paying $5000 for IBM Mainframe access terminals.

Or in a slightly less Dystopian view, computers today would look like iPhones, with one vendor having a stranglehold on the platform and completely anemic third party hardware support outside of cosmetics.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, and I still fail to see how header files are copyrightable. A copyright is supposed to protect the EXPRESSION of AN idea, however header files are merely a list of names, arguments, variables, etc. Nothing at all expressive in that.

If they allow them to apply copyright to header files then the copyright system going to need an even more major overhaul than it already does with these modern asininely lengthy copyright terms. They need to be rolled back to 30-50y period.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[sycodon]

Oracle must have contributed to the right Administration official.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you have a fundamental misunderstanding on how "intellectual property" works, at least here in the US. Patents/copyright/etc isn't the "property" of the person who "creates" it, the government GRANTS the creator a TEMPORARY monopoly over it to encourage creation of further art/inventions.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I understand what you are saying, but the public are not the rightful owners, either. After the patent or copyright expires, nobody is, and hence anyone is free to use it.

This is a philosophical difference, and I refuse to participate in some The Glory Of The People rhetoric. You don't get to own something simply by pure numbers.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are playing semantic nonsense games. If something is in the public domain, then the public owns it. It's not that no one owns it. It's that everyone owns it.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I am bothered by technical capabilities being copyrighted instead of patented, and thus never expiring. Apple's Macintosh "look and feel", anyone? Most of that isn't a particular style of horizontal line thru a window bar at the top, something that might be a legitimate copyrightable thing.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

When everyone owns it, then no-one owns it!

(obligatory "The Incredibles" reference)

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Holi]

So Apple only then?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Solicitor General of the Justice Department and the board of directors of Oracle can tongue my balls.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Holi]

Why because the court asked for the government's opinion?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Immerman]

I believe it's not that you can't use the API, but that you can't interface non-GPL code with the kernel due to the restrictions of the GPL. That you would use the API to do so is incidental to that restriction.

If instead you want to build your own kernel implementing the same API, I don't believe they have any objection.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[ShanghaiBill]

Why because the court asked for the government's opinion?

No. Because the government's opinion sounds like it was written by Oracle's general counsel

Re:Clean room implementation?

[requerdanos]

> (whenever Pooh and Mickey might enter the public domain, the legislators break it).

FTFY.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[s.petry]

The Laws we have in place are the same as we had back then. The main difference today is that people holding public offices tend to flaunt their pay-for-play status, where back in the 80s/90s they were still attempting to hide it. The biggest harm to IT took a while to get precedents set, but really started almost immediately with "ideas" being patented and copyrighted (you can thank the first Bush for that lovely patent reform).

As an example, Athena (X) was developed mostly by DARPA funding and grant money. Yet we had to see 32 screens worth of copyrights just to start the Xserver (okay, 32 is an exaggeration but the point remains). Some of these were to Universities like MIT, Berkley, and Stanford. Many others though were to Novell, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, etc.. etc... And no, these were not "credits", but copyrights. This is why Linux started with a pretty old version of X and basically had to reinvent the wheel. Linux had 1 crappy pay-for version of CDE because some schlep company ended up buying copyrights to extort money from people.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Maxwell]

No. Not at all. Read the $#%^ briefing, please. Google did a copy/paste of the Java source code into their own source code. The code that creates the API's is copyrighted. The API's themselves are not.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought he said less Dystopian.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[itsenrique]

He knows you're right but it just seems TOO much like a pinko commie plot.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[tepples]

the public are not the rightful owners, either. After the patent or copyright expires, nobody is, and hence anyone is free to use it.

Copyrights don't expire. Eldred v. Ashcroft.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[ShanghaiBill]

I am bothered by technical capabilities being copyrighted instead of patented

Interfaces, including APIs, should be neither copyrightable nor patentable. There is precedent for this in prior supreme court decisions concerning the interface for printer cartridges. In principle, this is no different.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Richard_at_work]

The only sway the GPL has here is due to copyright law, so if the GPL is in force in my example then that means the API is considered to be copyrighted...

No copyright issues means no GPL restrictions.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[GigaplexNZ]

The Laws we have in place are the same as we had back then.

The DMCA most definitely wasn't in place back then.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Archangel Michael]

To be fair, if it was (R) it would have happened too. And when people say that the (D) and (R) are really different, you can point them to this case to show that ... no not really.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[GigaplexNZ]

Nitpick - technically, we're talking about Java, where there are no header files. The interface is defined in the same source files as the implementation.

Even so, I don't think an API should be copyrightable, but if it is, it should be considered fair use to actually use it. Otherwise, the software industry just wouldn't work.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[faway]

No they just helped the CIA. That's enough.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[drinkypoo]

Doesn't the Linux kernel group hold a very similar stance in that you cannot use the kernels internal APIs without breaching copyright and thus falling under the GPL as a derivative work?

Not really. TL;DR: Linus doesn't say so, and he holds the trademark, so he gets to decide what makes "Linux(tm)".

Re:Clean room implementation?

[drinkypoo]

Why because the court asked for the government's opinion?

Yes, actually. Why should they bother, in this case?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[drinkypoo]

Linux had 1 crappy pay-for version of CDE because some schlep company ended up buying copyrights to extort money from people.

I don't even remember there being a pay-for version of CDE for Linux. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I just remember you could buy a Motif tarball from Metrolink that would get you Motif and mwm, not like you would ever use mwm when you had fvwm. And then later you could buy Caldera Network Desktop, which came with Metrolink Motif. You could also buy AccelX, which got you a substantially faster X server back in those days, with meaningful support for your video card's 2d acceleration features... something that XFree eventually achieved, of course. Apparently you can build CDE for Linux these days, but I haven't tried. (why...)

Re:Clean room implementation?

[jalopezp]

Literally what it means to be in the "Public Domain"

Re:Clean room implementation?

[fustakrakich]

Heh, rightful "owners"...

Re:Clean room implementation?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Google did a copy/paste of the Java source code into their own source code.

Google probably does copy/paste of the Java source code all the time, like lots of other people, because it's open source, so that is a meaningless accusation.

Google distributed interface definitions that look very similar to Oracle's. That's probably because in Java, there really aren't a lot of different ways of describing the same interface. Furthermore, interfaces should not usually be considered copyrightable.

Google also distributed some copyrighted Java source files. That was stupid, but those files appear to have been test cases, not code that ships on handsets, and it appears to have been unintentional. It's hard to argue that Oracle suffered any harm from that and Google came into compliance.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[satch89450]

I may just be dense, but reading the documents I get the impression that the API definition itself is not the issue, but the specific implementation of the code behind the API definition. If I'm reading this right, Google incorporated Oracle's Standard Library wholesale, instead of re-implementing the Standard Library from scratch. This is where the copyright infringement comes into play, where you use the expression of an idea instead of just the idea itself in your own works. Let's look at ANSI/ISO language standards: the API to the standard library for the language is specified in the Standard, but no implementation of the library routines are included in the Standard. Someone wanting to make a Standards-compliant implementation of the language would need to write their own library, or buy the library from someone else. ("Buy" doesn't necessarily mean money, see the GPL.) If what I stated above is indeed the fact pattern in this case, then the DoJ is correct in their amicus brief.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[UdoKeir]

Or Google has been resisting the NSA a little too much.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyrights are constitutionally mandated to expire. Eldred v. Ashcroft ruled that you couldn't declare a particular term extension unconstitutional. A pattern of Congress continually extending term lengths retroactively is not the same as a law declaring that copyrights do not expire, because the action that occurs if Congress does not act is that copyrights expire. Whereas in the latter scenario Congress has to act in order to make copyrights expire.

Nobody actually wants perpetual copyright terms, except maybe Disney. Congress sure as hell doesn't - after all, how would you be able to fleece the movie industry for campaign contributions if they already got what they want forever?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Immerman]

No, it does not. Re-read my post after you've had your morning coffee. You're free to use the API however you want, it's presumed not copyrightable. The *one* exception is using it for interacting with the Linux kernel, because the kernel *is* protected from such access by the GPL, and only GPL-compatible code is allowed to interact with its internals. The API is irrelevant to that fact - it's simply the interface used by those who *are* allowed to interact.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[kinkozmasta]

I suppose it depends on exactly what you mean, but I don't think so. At least not in an analogous way to the Oracle case.

It is allowed to use kernel header files in user space, in order for user-space programs to interact with the kernel via ordinary system calls. This is allowed without the result that the user-space program becomes a derivative work of the kernel and therefore subject to GPL.

In general, use of header files do not create derivative works, although there can be exceptions. There used to be a lot of attention paid to the amount of code (e.g. number of lines) included from a header file, but no one seems to care about that these days, and this is almost never a problem. Richard Stallman has stated that use of header files for data structures, constant definitions, and enumerations (and even small inlines) does not create a derivative work.

http://elinux.org/Legal_Issues...

Re:Clean room implementation?

[DrJimbo]

If I'm reading this right, Google incorporated Oracle's Standard Library wholesale, instead of re-implementing the Standard Library from scratch.

You are not reading it right. The standard library was re-implemented using the same API. That's why the government's stance would destroy the software industry as we know it because a complete re-implementation would still be covered by the copyright of the original implementation. This is exactly copyrighting an idea instead of a particular expression of an idea.

My guess is that the reason for this idiotic position is to intentionally kill off Linux and all independent software development in order to stop terrorism.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually read it as the opposite. They copied the package names and interface definition to provide a different implementation but wrote that implementation from scratch. That is why the brief discusses the API definition and argues (IMO incorrectly) that there is no different between definition and implementation in source code and thus both are copyright-able.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[flink]

Doesn't the Linux kernel group hold a very similar stance in that you cannot use the kernels internal APIs without breaching copyright and thus falling under the GPL as a derivative work?

Using the API doesn't invoke the GPL -- it's actually the linking process. When you link against the kernel, your binary becomes a derivative work partially based on the kernel. Since the kernel is covered by the GPL, creating any derivative work from it requires you abide by the terms of the GPL. I doubt any FSF lawyer would have anything negative to say about cloning a project's public API in order to create a completely new implementation under a different license.

Another example: If I created a GPL program with an API that did not make it necessary to link against a library to use - e.g. you talked to my program via IPC or a wire protocol like SOAP, then you could utilize my API all you wanted without triggering the GPL. You could distribute your program that uses my API under whatever license you want.

This is why it's common for software that has a GPL server component to distribute the client driver libraries under the LGPL. Modifications the the server or the client driver itself must be shared, but programs that merely link to the driver may remain proprietary.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[gnupun]

A copyright is supposed to protect the EXPRESSION of AN idea, however header files are merely a list of names, arguments, variables, etc. Nothing at all expressive in that.

I disagree. APIs are a valid expression of an idea. Given an area of computing (regex, networking), there are dozens if not hundreds of ways you can design the API -- so it's a creative form of expression which is what copyright laws are supposed to protect.

There are plenty of different ways to define class names (and their responsibilities), method names and arguments. If you asked a dozen programmers to independently design a dozen APIs for the same area of computing, the result will be a dozen different APIs.

Copyright for APIs is also good because it prevents other companies from leeching of genius and expense of creating the APIs. Say Sun spent tens of millions to design the APIs, and Google spent how much to copy paste the class definitions? Maybe a few thousands, and that's leeching. They should spend the money and do the hard work of designing their own Java APIs.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[The Rizz]

Eldred v. Ashcroft ruled that you couldn't declare a particular term extension unconstitutional.

No. It just established that the arguments put forth in that case weren't enough to overturn the 1998 extension. It also sets a precedent that will weaken any similar challenges. It does not mean that another case against term extensions couldn't succeed in the future.

Re: Clean room implementation?

[hackwrench]

It also means that if we got a Congress that actually wanted to retroactively shorten copyright terms they can.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Nitpick - technically, we're talking about Java, where there are no header files. The interface is defined in the same source files as the implementation.

You're correct that Java doesn't have header files; Java uses Interfaces which fulfill the same function. Best practice is to write your API using Interfaces, and not code to a particular implementation (classes).

You can define Interfaces and Classes in the same source file, but people typically create a separate file for each one.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't link against the kernel, unless you're doing kernel modules maybe.
You link against a C library. This is why the LGPL was made.
If you created an application that directly uses system calls without the gnu C library (i.e. by directly inserting whatever trap instruction the kernel uses for system calls) then there would be no linking between any gpl and non-gpl code at all.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, an API by it's very definition must have / use the same hooks, parameters, variables, conditions in order for it to function.

Developing your own code that accepts the same API will never be infringing.

Since Android's API was initially based off of Java's, a lot of code can be ported from Java to Android readily. That's the crux of Oracle's lawsuit - they don't like that at all.

It's really funny that Oracle, a company that was solely based on wholesale copying of one of IBM's databases (ie, they copied the API, all source code, etc verbatim), then resold it as Oracle. They've gone beyond that now, but Oracle wouldn't exist if not for what they stole from IBM.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're free to use the API however you want, it's presumed not copyrightable.

Okay...

The *one* exception is using it for interacting with the Linux kernel, because the kernel *is* protected from such access by the GPL, and only GPL-compatible code is allowed to interact with its internals.

If the API isn't copyrightable then what is it about it that would be incompatible with the GPL?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite...

If Compaq had not done what they did, someone else eventually would have. The only important part of the IBM vs Compaq story is that they made a 100% IBM PC(XT/AT) compatible system, despite sticking with proprietary hardware designs until the Pentium 3 era. But so did IBM, (and Apple) and both of them lost the popularity contest to cheaper clones that more faithfully copied the IBM's ISA slot designs, drives and keyboard interfaces.

A more optimistic view would be had it not happened, eventually IBM would have kept trying to extend the life of the PC/XT far beyond the lifetime that they were supposed to last, and "cloud" computing/internet access would have been little more than IBM XT's connected to "cloud server mainframes" where everything would be super expensive. Non-IBM's (eg the Amiga, Apple, or even Atari) would have became the devices people actually bought for home computers, especially since the Amiga (had Commodore not botched that up to high heaven) was actually a far superior computer that you could use with your existing television. The game consoles (eg NES/SNES) may have also encroached on the XT's space and pushed IBM systems back to "just clunky beige boxes used for payroll"

Like if you look at the existing computer/console "master race" competition, It was the Amiga and Atari systems that overlapped both, and unfortunately both of those companies didn't know what they had before sinking the ship. So what "today" might have looked like instead would have been computers at least 15 years behind where we are now (due to no reason to innovate on the IBM design) and Steve Jobs may have never gone back to Apple. Remember a lot of the stuff in existing PC's were things that Apple introduced as a standard feature (onboard sound, onboard networking (especially WiFi,) standard SCSI, USB ports, Firewire (cameras), PCI slots, SATA drives, kiss the floppy good bye) , so you can thank Apple for introducing things that changed what people demanded in their computers. Without Apple (let's say that Steve Jobs would have stayed at NeXT, because Apple didn't run a clone program, and thus wasn't in as dire straights, and wouldn't feel like they needed Steve Jobs) a lot of what became standard (particularly USB and and onboard networking) would have have been relegated to expansion cards, and systems would still need to be the size of a book case to have everything.

The iPod, the SmartPhone, would never have happened. Apple invented both of these (first inventing the "handheld" computer) and then the PDA's were lead by Palm and Microsoft for a while until they started having demand for integrated cellphone features. What might have happened is that Blackberry would have become the dominant smartphone and all our smartphones would ugly "look-a-like"'s of it (going by Google's pre-iPhone diagrams)

So what does this mean about Oracle and Java? Well color me unimpressed with Java, I'd probably root for Oracle, even though I hate Oracle far more than Google. Had this alternate history played out, Java would not exist, because there would have been no market for it. IBM would have one walled garden, Apple would have had another and would not be the market leader, and there would be "licensed" clones that started coming out around 2000 instead of 20 years earlier. The "Internet" would have never been a thing (because what drove it was cheap computers and Windows 95), and the version of Windows that everyone would be running on the licensed IBM clones would be OS/2.

Indeed, Linux and FreeBSD might not even be an x86 technology. Apple helped invent ARM, IBM exclusively uses Intel x86 (and may have used non-backwards compatible chips on purpose to keep vendor lock-in (remember Itanium?) DEC Alpha may have been the home for all things Unix. Though it's also possible that we may have wound up standardizing on ARM in this alternate universe since the timing coincides with patents running out on the original IBM's, Apples, Amiga's, and clones. Not wanting to be locked into IBM yet again, everyone standardizes on ARM for their systems around 2005 and though our desktops and laptops in this alternate universe wind up behind by 15 years, we end up with the abandonment of the IBM-Intel-Microsoft cabal cold turkey.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[suutar]

Internal APIs are part of the kernel implementation; that's why they change so often. If you're using one, you're implementing a kernel piece, and therefore creating a derived work.

The external API that is for use by non-kernel software has no such restriction. You can write any code you want that makes calls to the Linux kernel. You may not be able to _ship_ the linux kernel along with your code, if your code isn't GPL, but that's a restriction on what you can do with linux code, not with your own.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[suutar]

flink's post below talking about linking makes more sense than mine.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[shaitand]

"If copyright governs interfaces, that part of the law will keep the government from stealing IP away from its rightful owners after twenty years."

That's a pretty insane statement. Copyright doesn't grant ownership and there are no rightful owners. Copyright is government imposed limitations on the natural rights of everyone else. If you write a book, you own THAT book and that particular copy of it's contents nothing more or less. I have the right to copy any software, api, song, movie, etc limited only by your right to try to stop me. Copyright is the government interfering with those rights.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[shaitand]

I am bothered by copyrights lasting longer than patents or anything for both.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[shaitand]

"I understand what you are saying, but the public are not the rightful owners, either. After the patent or copyright expires"

If we are splitting hairs nobody is the rightful owner before the patent or copyright expires either. Neither of those things confer ownership.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The kernel is under copyright. Code written specifically to interface on such a low level with the kernel is a derivative work, hence requires permission from the kernel's copyright holders. The holders grant such permission only under the conditions of GPLv2.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly... i frequently wonder about this when thinking about the inventions of the past. if we are the manifestation of weak or non existent patents, how in the world are strong, perpetual patents/copyrights supposed to make anything better?

as opposed to say... keeping all the wealth at the top?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the API isn't copyrightable then what is it about it that would be incompatible with the GPL?

The kernel binary. If you call a function in the kernel then you are incorporating that function from the kernel into your program, your program now contains part of the kernel inside it so is a derivative work under copyright law.

The part that matters is the code running behind the API, not the API itself. If you are calling the same function in the BSD kernel then it would not matter because the BSD license is more permissive.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[david_thornley]

Laws can change without any legislative action, and Federal law is not consistent over the country.

Laws are almost never perfectly clear, and have to be interpreted by the courts. Over time, interpretations can change, and different Circuits can have different interpretations, which stand in their part of the country unless and until the Supreme Court makes a ruling.

If we'd had the same interpretations, the Visicalc people would have gotten a patent on software spreadsheets, for example.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[david_thornley]

Copyrights are not supposed to affect anything functional. I can't legally make and sell copies of the Harry Potter books, but I'm perfectly free to write my own similar novels and try to sell them. I can legally take reference books, extract the facts, write my own reference, and try to sell it. In this case, I can write a Java program that works on Android and on Linux only if the APIs are the same.

Copyright doesn't depend on the amount of work that went into something. It may be a lot of work to create a phone directory (at least it used to be), but the listings aren't copyrightable.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[david_thornley]

You can use Linux APIs all you want, no problem.

You can't link certain code directly into the Linux kernel, because at that point you're creating a derivative work that has to be licensed under the GPLv2, and if the license of the code you added isn't compatible with GPLv2 you cannot satisfy both licenses simultaneously.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

While Eldred did erode the 'limited times' limitation in the US Constitution, Eldred only permits the copyright term extension Congress passed. It doesn't necessarily bar a new challenge if Congress were to extend the terms again, as a new extension couldn't be justified the same way the previous extension was.

This is not to say they couldn't or wouldn't give Congress a pass on another term extension, just that the justification would have to be a bit different than it was before.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[gnupun]

It may be a lot of work to create a phone directory (at least it used to be), but the listings aren't copyrightable.

Sorry, but APIs are not fixed format like directories: "name: ph. number." As I stated above, there are plenty of subjective and creative design decisions that go into creating an API. This is very similar to the subjective and creative decisions that go into writing a novel. Hence both APIs and books should receive copyright protection.

For example, both OpenGL and DirectX are 3D APIs that can be used to write 3D games. However, the design decisions and structure of API is quite different.

Only extremely trivial problem spaces yield fixed APIs. Massive APIs like the Java API which contains thousands of methods are not trivial and should receive copyright protection. Why should Google benefit from Java API's good design with $0 license payment?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[gnupun]

Re: the OpenGL/Direct3D example, both APIs provide the same functionality and run on the same hardware. But the syntactic format and scope of functions is quite different. If Microsoft can invest resources to create an API, why can't Google?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Chalnoth]

What Google is asking for here is the ability to create competing Java VM's. What Oracle is asking for is a complete monopoly on all Java VM's everywhere.

Giving Oracle a monopoly on the Java language is bad for everybody. It prevents, for example, somebody coming up with a new operating system that supports Java apps without Oracle building creating the Java library implementation for that platform.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[DavidRawling]

And why should developers and other companies "benefit from Java API's good design with $0 license payment"? That's exactly why Oracle are introducing their Licensed Java Developer program. For only $10,000 per annum, you can be certified to write code that uses the Java API. If you're writing for a company, that company will need to be part of the Licensed Java Application program too, at $25,000 per annum. Extra programs can be brought under the same company umbrella for just $5,000 each. Please note that this program only covers internal applications used by staff, and interested organisations should ensure they comply with the Licensed Java User and Licensed Java Non-Staff User agreements. Applications and code delivered over the Internet will require the organisation owning the code to comply with the terms of the Licensed Java Internet Application agreement, and pay the annual $100,000 fee to Oracle.

You might need a few <sarcasm> tags there, but I do wonder how far Oracle will try to push this.

The next problem though is this. If the Java API is copyrighted, then _any_ API must also be copyrighted. Thus the following are also all copyrighted works which you can't use without the owner's permission:

• * int main (int argc, char**argv)
• * int swap (int a, int b)
• * Any C/C++ header file
• * Any object hierarchy, containing at least one class, method or property

You.can't specify a level of complexity (it will be gamed) so you cannot avoid even the simplest "API"s from being copyrighted. It's not quite "the end of the world" but it's a pretty good attempt.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[gnupun]

I can write a Java program that works on Android and on Linux only if the APIs are the same.

Wait, why do you want Java programs to execute on both Linux and Android? Both platforms seem incompatible, especially the GUI stuff (and there's no cmd line on Android unless you are rooted, I'm not sure). So, there's no hard reason for Google's Java API to exactly match Oracle's standard Java API.

Java is middleware and you don't need to copy Java API headers to access the functionality of the Android OS. So why doesn't Google design their own Java API for Android or license it from Oracle?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[gnupun]

And why should developers and other companies "benefit from Java API's good design with $0 license payment"?

But these developers are not re-selling a modified version of the Java plaform -- they are just using/calling the APIs to write their apps. Google is reimplementing Java APIs and that's completely different.

That main() and swap() API are not copyrightable because they are too short. It would be like copyrighting individual words of the English language, which is not permitted.

C++ header implementation is controlled by the C++ committee.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[angel'o'sphere]

APIs can't be copyrighted.

Only the implementation of said APIs can.

The text of the article is wrong in that regard or simplified.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[angel'o'sphere]

If you asked a dozen programmers to independently design a dozen APIs for the same area of computing, the result will be a dozen different APIs.
Then minimum 11 of that dozen programmers are incompetent.

Seems you are mixing up API with implementation anyway in your post.

APIs (as well as DB schemas) are not copyrightable, for a reason.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[gnupun]

Then minimum 11 of that dozen programmers are incompetent.

Are you implying there is exactly ONE MIDDLEWARE API (like Java) to access services of the OS? That's bullshit. Are you also implying that there is no creativity and design involved in designing an API?

Seems you are mixing up API with implementation anyway in your post.

Just because there are multiple ways to implement an API does not mean there is only one API for a given area of computing. Why are there posts after posts like yours repeating the same falsehood over and over again?

Re:Clean room implementation?

[Anonymous Coward]

by it's very definition

"its".

Re:Clean room implementation?

[angel'o'sphere]

Your way of posting implies you don't know what an API is.

E.g. calling a middle ware an API is nonsense. And there is certainly no "Java API" for that.

To implement middle ware we in our times use: SOAP, REST, various message queues, CORBA and RMI, and probably custom made ones.

So: YES, if you want to call that an API (the correct term is: "a standard") then there is for most of them only one API, in other words: the CORBA binding for SUNs/Oracles Java and IBMs Java and HPs Java: are identical! That is the point of having such an API.

Are you also implying that there is no creativity and design involved in designing an API?

How do you come to that conclusion? I did not say that. Nor did I imply that.

When I ask 12 (competent) developers as you proclaimed to define an API for reading/sending/processing eMails like this: https://javamail.java.net/nona...
then I expect them to get at max three variations of such an API which should look very similar.

After all there is no sane reason to craft an API that diverges much from suns original work.

You might disagree, but you would be wrong.

Same for any other API. If you find it complicated to design APIs then perhaps restrain yourself from it.

Just because there are multiple ways to implement an API ...
Implementation is not defining an API!!!
... does not mean there is only one API for a given area of computing. Of course not, but there is one mainstream and a few rarely used ones, like SAX versus Schema based or RelaxNG based XML parsing/processing. In Java you have on API and multiple implementations.
Same for JDBC, JDBC is the API and various database vendors implement that API, but there is no "other version of JDBC than original JDBC because it is for funk sake not needed!!

Re:Clean room implementation?

[lsatenstein]

Yes. Exactly.

It's all about the term of copyright versus the term of patent. Patent lasts only twenty years at present, while copyright is effectively perpetual (whenever Pooh and Mickey might enter the public domain, the legislators fix it). If copyright governs interfaces, that part of the law will keep the government from stealing IP away from its rightful owners after twenty years.

Is it time to produce a new language that is not like Java syntax. Surely some variant of python or APL could do the job. APL was used in the 1980's and cloaked in a modern garb could replace Python and Java both.

 

Re:Clean room implementation?

[CanEHdian]

I am bothered by copyrights lasting longer than patents or anything for both.

This is always what I bring up in copyright term discussions: why should an inventor, working for years on an idea and perfecting it, then finally applying for a patent, only get 20 years to exploit their hard work, ingenuity and creativity, after which the invention becomes public domain and benefits society be considered a Great Thing, but it's perfectly fine to have to pay Warner Music Group royalties to "Happy Birthday To You" (super-intelligent lyrics only) as otherwise artists would starve/no longer be bothered to create new works?

Don't forget, the Copyright Industry is not just the RIAA/MPAA, it's also the Hordes Of Lawyers involved in all the "clearances" and other related stuff. And the same way the revolving door PoliticiansRIAA/MPAA/Lobbyists works, the IP Lawyers Judges revolving door works the same way.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[shentino]

If that's true when what will SCOTUS think about someone defying its earlier ruling?

And why wasn't that decision cited by Google?

Sorry, but stare decisis!

If you fuck up, you eat it, even if you were right.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[shentino]

The idea is that the kernel api is not meant for public usage, but only for other kernel code. Furthermore, they claim that anything that close to the kernel is interoperating so tightly with it that it's effectively a derived work.

The java api, otoh, was designed for public use.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[lgw]

Well, (D) and (R) often represent different corporations. There's only a few, like the investment banks and cable companies who bribe everyone.

Re:Clean room implementation?

[gnupun]

Implementation is not defining an API!!!

For the Nth time, I know what an API is:
/* API method description goes here ... */
method_attributes method_return_type methodName(Type1 arg1, Type2 arg2, Type3 arg3, ...)

In no way I'm talking about implementation. There are numerous combinations to break up classes, methods, method arguments that differ from vendor to vendor, developer to developer. That is, different vendors can and should produce different APIs. Get it Now?? Or how I have to spell everything out like you're 5 years old?

Java is done

[Anonymous Coward]

If this stands, Java's vaunted claim to being on "billions of devices" will soon become the punchline to a bad joke.

Re:Java is done

[ardentsoap]

It's almost like Oracle is trying to kill Java. Wouldn't it have been easier to let Sun implode and fade away?

Re:Java is done

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but that would take a couple billion years.

Re:Java is done

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle BOUGHT Sun because their CEO promised them they had a copyright claim to Android that would be legally actionable. Otherwise Sun was a waste of money.

Re:Java is done

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill Java? Yay!

Re:Java is done

[dAzED1]

Sun was flush with cash at the time of the acquisition, and also had a great deal of solid IP and customer faith. Solaris prior to Oracle was *the* most solid OS available in my opinion, and sparcs were always great for their target audience. Sun's only problem is the market became too commodity - fabbers need to make billions of chips now to stay competitive, and that just wasn't possible. But Sun had paths forward to fix these things - they were actually on the right road already, imo - forming ties with AMD, coming up with a way to keep their core but become commodity, by giving AMD access to high tech they needed. A road that Oracle took them off - Sun would be just fine today if Oracle hadn't bought them.

Re:Java is done

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun already imploded. It just takes a while for the information to reach us.

Re:Java is done

[MouseR]

That's retarded. Oracle had (and maintains) a sizeable investment in Java and the rack servers for which Oracle is optimized for.

The acquisition was about securing the investment. Not any devious scheme.

Disclaimer: I work for Oracle but am not in any way associated with the Java group nor am I part of the executive/decision-making chain.

Re:Java is done

[RavenLrD20k]

See you in 8 minutes... Or maybe I won't.

Re: Java is done

[bill_mcgonigle]

So you're not privvy to what goes on upstairs. Go find somebody in the know, get them drunk, and ask them about massive scaling and Google's patents on map/reduce.

In the meantime this seems like a good idiological fit. The surveillance-funded corporations will be taken care of while the USG destroys the software industry, which is too wildly successful for a completely unregulated market. Nimble big-name companies have already fled or are in the process of fleeing the jurisdiction, leaving work-a-day programmers to manage the leavings or find a different line of work.

Re:Java is done

[s.petry]

That's retarded. Oracle had (and maintains) a sizeable investment in Java and the rack servers for which Oracle is optimized for.

The acquisition was about securing the investment. Not any devious scheme.

Disclaimer: I work for Oracle but am not in any way associated with the Java group nor am I part of the executive/decision-making chain.

Your point of something being retarded is aimed in the wrong direction. "Securing" would mean that they originally owned it, but they didn't. They purchased Sun and immediately started legal actions which Sun was never going to pursue because they knew they had open sourced Java. In fact in the Google vs. Oracle case numerous messages from Sun came out expressing exactly that, which is why the first Judge ruled for Google. The Judge also understood the sheer idiocy of Oracle claiming patent and copyright on things like function names and how arguments get passed to them, and all the other crap that Oracle claimed was stolen by Google.

I still have no idea how the first decision was overturned.. oh wait.. money and Larry's personal lobby group.. nevermind.

Re:Java is done

[s.petry]

Who the hell rated this a troll? "flush with cash" is a stretch, but that does not make it a troll.

Re:Java is done

[MouseR]

It's my opinion that Sun had a case but no the money to follow suit, until Oracle bought them.

But wasn't the whole thing about some private APIs that Google (or whatever was that company it hired) made use and actually copied verbatim?

IANAL.

And by "securing", I meant "securing it's investment in the technology", not ownership of Sun itself.

Oracle DBs and Apps make substantial use of Java. Had Sun been allowed to falter, or worse yet be bough by a (then) competitor like IBM, it would have been disastrous for Oracle.

Re:Java is done

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be _good_ for the industry. Maybe people would embrace alternative VMs and languages like ravm.

Re:Java is done

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Sun would be just fine today if Oracle hadn't bought them.

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree. Sun was a hardware company that also sold an operating system. From the late 90's on Sun began losing marketshare to Linux on commodity hardware. Sun tried to respond by moving to x86 and publishing a companion CD/DVD of (old versions) of popular open-source software with limited success. It's a fact that Solaris was pretty much useless without also installing a bunch of GNU software as Sun shipped obsolete/buggy versions of quite a few programs. People who had existing Solaris installations did typically stay on Solaris, but new deployments tended to be Linux-based operating systems.

These days Oracle/Sun is a niche player. They target large, slow moving corporations with large deployments and the budgets to match. I would be quite surprised to hear of a start-up or small company that were still using them.

Re:Java is done

[s.petry]

The only way to come to your conclusion is to ignore facts. You can go read the original decision and evidence which accompanied the decision. No, you don't need to be an attorney to figure this out.

But wasn't the whole thing about some private APIs that Google (or whatever was that company it hired) made use and actually copied verbatim?

No, again you can go read the decision and evidence (which includes the charges from Oracle against Google). It was one of the most open Civil cases I have ever seen.

Oracle DBs and Apps make substantial use of Java. Had Sun been allowed to falter, or worse yet be bough by a (then) competitor like IBM, it would have been disastrous for Oracle.

At best a straw man, at worst complete horse shit. IBM does not run around suing people over bullshit like this, and _IF_ they had bought Sun they _Might_ have done something fools nobody but you. Fighting pretty hard to hold that delusion that Oracle is right aren't ya? Well, you did say you worked there so...

An opinion which completely ignores facts is worth very little. An opinion that counters facts and relies on events that never happened... absolutely useless.

Re:Java is done

[guacamole]

It's hard to believe that Sun would have been fine today, if Oracle hasn't bought them. We kept hearing the same story every year since 2000, and yet Sun's stock never recovered after the dotcom bubble burst. Indeed, the market has become very commodidized with Lintel and Wintel getting better and better at every iteration. Sun's corporate culture that aimed to protect Solaris and Sparc made the company take a wrong turn in the late 90s and early 2000s, by completely missing a chance to embrace Linux, x86, and open source. Sure, they reversed their decision, but Sun has been playing catchup since then. Also Sun's SPARC chips have been consistently a laggard in the performance department. Always overpriced, and always later to the market.

Re:Java is done

[Anonymous Coward]

From the late 90's on Sun began losing marketshare to Linux on commodity hardware

LOVE the revisionist history. Sure, Linux was being used all through the 90's, but marketshare Linux didn't have until 2002, and then the admins revolted and demanded a better OS. Subsquently, Linux LOST marketshare for a couple years until it started to get REALLY stable. Linux in the late 90's was no where that mattered. I doubt any Solaris/sparc installations were threatened by or replaced with Linux/commodity hw until years later... and there was a backlash because that early commercial use of Linux floundered, because it absolutely sucked. Only by the fanatical will of the penquinistas did Linux make a big comeback and ultimately won the field.

Re:Java is done

[david_thornley]

Also, look at the Unix market back then: lots of different companies making workstations and servers that ran proprietary versions of Unix. The ecosystem has either died entirely or faded to the point where I no longer hear about it. (The only company making lots of money on a non-Linux version of Unix that I can think of is Apple, and the base OS isn't proprietary.)

Re:Java is done

[Anonymous Coward]

A start-up or small company won't be using Sparc Solaris. But not because Oracle targets "large, slow moving corporations." Big Business doesn't use Sparc/Solaris because they are stupid on inflexible. They use Oracle Sparc/Solaris for the same reason I don't drive a Mac truck to work. It's called "the right tool for the job."

If I want a massively concurrent 50 TB financials database to "just run," run in RAM, and not have to keep a team of "NoSQL" developers on staff to keep it running, I go Oracle Sparc/Solaris. If I want to run busy webapp I'll use AWS.

Start-ups and small business aren't even on Oracles radar.

Someone claim (C) on something oracle depend on

[Anonymous Coward]

Like libc, or whatever, or change licenses to an "Oracle Exclusion License" so stupid things like "Copyrighting APIs" get dropped and common sense rules again.

Re:Someone claim (C) on something oracle depend on

[PRMan]

Yes. All new open source licenses should specifically exclude Oracle. But be available to everyone else.

Re:Someone claim (C) on something oracle depend on

[TheRaven64]

The Open Group claims the copyright on the POSIX specifications. If APIs can be copyrighted and this copyright includes all implementations, then it would be problematic for all open source *NIX systems. Of course, they might decide to provide a license that's valid for everyone except Oracle (though writing such a license in a way that's GPL compatible would be very hard, so glibc might be in trouble).

Re:Someone claim (C) on something oracle depend on

[ClickOnThis]

The Open Group claims the copyright on the POSIX specifications. If APIs can be copyrighted and this copyright includes all implementations, then it would be problematic for all open source *NIX systems.

Only if The Open Group were acquired by a company with malevolent intentions. A company such as, oh say, Oracle.

Of course, they might decide to provide a license that's valid for everyone except Oracle (though writing such a license in a way that's GPL compatible would be very hard, so glibc might be in trouble).

How is glibc in trouble? Oracle doesn't have the copyright for it.

Wasn't Java open sourced?

[jfdavis668]

If Oracle open sourced Java, how can they be suing anyone?

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[JBMcB]

By open sourcing something you don't necessarily give up your copyright claim. You're giving everyone a license to use and modify your code under certain conditions, and those conditions can be whatever you want based on your license (GPL/Apache/BSD/Whatever)

If you put the code in the public domain, you give up all claims to copyright.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google didn't use the open source version (OpenJDK is GPL). They reimplemented it with a more permissive license (Apache2). Oracle is saying they are not allowed to do that.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Cajun Hell]

By paying their lawyers.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[jazzis]

Mod up as informative; and correct.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Because open sourcing has nothing to do with giving up copyright. Sun didn't give up their copyright when GPLing it and Orcale now holds it.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[ihtoit]

no, you don't. You can place something in the public domain with a restrictive licence, such as a book licence ("No photocopying"), or a limited distribution such as that attached to an NDA (as Microsoft did with the NT code it sent to China) or you can compile the code and distribute the binary with a clause in a licence agreement that says "No reverse engineering" (as Microsoft does in just about every commercial licence it's ever distributed under).

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the examples you give involve placing anything in the public domain. Releasing something to the public is not the same thing as putting it in the public domain. Open Sourcing something is *also* not the same as putting it in the public domain. If something is in the public domain, it is no longer subject to copyright, as a result, a work in the public domain can be used, built on, deconstructed, cribbed from, etc. in any way anybody wants.

If someone releases a work with a license, it is (by definition) *NOT* in the public domain.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Hardhead_7]

This is why when Microsoft open sourced the new .NET framework recently, they also included a "Covenant not the Sue" document saying you were free to re-implement the .NET API with your own code. Basically, promising not to pull an Oracle. The upshot is .NET is now more free-as-in-freedom than Java. It's enough to make your head explode.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand what "public domain" even means.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Holi]

I don't think you can put something in the public domain. Regardless of what you do you still have the copyright on it until it expires.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[jfdavis668]

Google didn't modify the source code. They didn't even use the source code. Why would they have to follow the GPL?

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

You most definitely CAN put something in the public domain. This notion that everything MUST be owned by SOMEONE is both ridiculous and harmful.

"Sometimes people wish for a piece of their own work to be freely available to everyone to use with no strings attached, and put the work in the public domain. This isn't very hard to do — the copyright holder merely has to make a statement that they release all rights to the work. Once this irrevocable act is complete they no longer have any power over how the work is used since it is then owned by the public as a whole."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can very easily put something in the public domain. Publicly declare it is in the public domain and it is in the public domain.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

The upshot is .NET is now more free-as-in-freedom than Java.

And it's also superior to Java in just about every respect. Seriously, .NET is what Java could have been if Sun hadn't idled development of the language and its libraries until they themselves were acquired by a company intent on squeezing whatever revenue is left out of the Java husk. Contrast that with hundreds of millions of dollars of serious investment by Microsoft into .NET over a decade and it's hard to see now how Java could ever catch up now. Certainly Oracle is not going to pump that kind of investment into Java, they just don't care and this lawsuit is proof of their developer unfriendly roadmap for Java.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no; the only places where "copying" was found were a handful of too-obvious cases where the code was the only straightforward way of performing the function, things like absolute-value: if (x > 0) return x; else return -x .What they *did* copy were the API interfaces so that a Java programmer could use the same *calls* , but the code to implement the calls was Android. If you look at the EFF amicus brief with Just A Few Notable Names (https://www.eff.org/document/amicus-brief-computer-scientists), if Oracle's position was upheld then, as others have already said, things like compatible BIOS packages, libc, etc would all become impossible, and users would likely flee Java to avoid Oracle's lawyers coming down on them for any reverse-engineering.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[PRMan]

No. They didn't. In the case they searched all over for an example of this and could only find one that wasn't very good.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you talking about the rangecheck function? Because that was practically a joke.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately this is not actually allowed in many jurisdictions and, therefore, is ineffective. It is much more effective to put something under a broad license than try to put it into the public domain.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Here is what the copyright case was about:

The copyright phase consisted of several distinct claims of infringement: a nine-line rangeCheck function, several test files, the structure, sequence and organization of the Java Application Programming Interface (API), and the API documentation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O....

No matter what Google may have copied, according to Oracle's own court case and allegations, they did not create a single API by copy-and-paste, as you allege.

The only "actual Java source code" copied is these nine lines:

private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex {
          if (fromIndex > toIndex)
                    throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
                              ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
          if (fromIndex < 0)
                    throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
          if (toIndex > arrayLen)
                    throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
}

But, actually, these lines pretty much follow from normal Java programming conventions; whether or not Google actually copied them, they should not be covered by copyright law since they are not creative.

So, in different words, you're a liar.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The idea that Java was ever free was rooted in Sun's original promises about making Java an open standard. But Sun dragged that process out for years and eventually just reneged on it, all the while filing patents and making sure that they owned the platform completely. Sun probably did that because they had learned that open and free platforms like Linux and X11 were eating their lunch.

Because a lot of FOSS developers had counted on Sun's promises, by the time it was clear that Java was going to remain proprietary and that Sun was going to break their promises, those developers preferred to maintain the myth that Java was "free" instead of facing reality, losing their investments and livelihood, and moving away from the platform.

Microsoft was kind of the opposite; Sun beat them over the head with a legal stick, that's why they created .NET. And Microsoft pretty quickly tried to put the legal framework in place to guarantee that .NET was a free and open platform, but because of Microsoft's rotten history, people didn't trust them.

I don't think this should make your head explode, it's just companies reacting to their past experiences, and people acting with rational self interest, even if their self-interest is really harmful to the community (like people who advocated Java as a free and open platform after around 2000).

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

You absolutely can put something in the public domain. The idea that everything must be own by some one is ridiculous and harmful.

"Sometimes people wish for a piece of their own work to be freely available to everyone to use with no strings attached, and put the work in the public domain. This isn't very hard to do — the copyright holder merely has to make a statement that they release all rights to the work. Once this irrevocable act is complete they no longer have any power over how the work is used since it is then owned by the public as a whole."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

You most certainly can put something in the public domain. All you have to do is publicly declare that a work of yours is in the public domain and is in it irrevocably so.

"Sometimes people wish for a piece of their own work to be freely available to everyone to use with no strings attached, and put the work in the public domain. This isn't very hard to do — the copyright holder merely has to make a statement that they release all rights to the work. Once this irrevocable act is complete they no longer have any power over how the work is used since it is then owned by the public as a whole."

wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sometimes people wish for a piece of their own work to be freely available to everyone to use with no strings attached, and put the work in the public domain. This isn't very hard to do — the copyright holder merely has to make a statement that they release all rights to the work. Once this irrevocable act is complete they no longer have any power over how the work is used since it is then owned by the public as a whole."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Didn't Google take parts Apache Harmony as base?

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, they copied what is in the documentation, and wrote a program that does exactly what the documentation says Java does, they never once copied java code. It's similar to someone telling you what it means for a car to be street legal (it has mirrors, headlights, wipers, etc), and then you build a street legal car and they sue you because they own the definition of street legal and your car meets it. You never copied any design, but it is true that you got the idea to add headlights from them, and you knew that if you didn't add headlights your car would be unsellable because it wasn't street legal.

Google had to copy portions of the API to make it compatible, but they didn't copy any code.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

While you can open source something, this is not the same as placing it in the public domain. The public domain by definition is free from copyright and patent concerns. You essentially end this protections at the point you place it in the public domain. That act releases all claims. Anything with a restrictive disclaimer or license is not in the public domain, but may be open source or creative commons.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[complete loony]

And I believe that those 9 lines were typed into both the oracle and google implementation by the same engineer.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun beat them with a stick? Nice revisionist history there. Microsoft was doing what they did best at the time: embrace, extend, extinguish. The only way Sun was able to keep Java alive was through the lawsuit. Microsoft tried the same thing with the web. We're lucky open browsers won that war.

Re:Wasn't Java open sourced?

[shentino]

That woudln't be putting it into the public domain. Only the actual destruction of the copyright can do that.

This is merely a binding covenant not to sue.

Promissory estoppel will quickly come into play if you try to backtrack. But you still own the coyright.

Mini Sample

[koan]

Of what the TPP is going to do.

Re:Mini Sample

[Yomers]

TPP - The Pirate Party? Are they going to urge US Supreme Court, too? I'm confused.

Re:Mini Sample

[Newander]

Trans Pacific Partnership

Re:Mini Sample

[koan]

I was hoping it was a bad joke.

Re:Mini Sample

[DoofusOfDeath]

Of what the TPP is going to do.

Or perhaps the TPP people don't want the SCOTUS ruling on this, because it could provide a constitutional basis for challenging the TPP.

Nah, nevermind. That couldn't be the motivation of The Most Transparent Administration in History.

Re:Mini Sample

[david_thornley]

This isn't a constitutional question. It's a question of what copyright law means. The Supreme Court doesn't just rule on constitutionality.

Oracle's interpretation is perfectly consistent with the Constitution, just not in accord with what the software industry desperately needs and how copyright has normally been interpreted.

Justice Department?

[BenJeremy]

WTF do they have to do with this case? This isn't a criminal proceeding, it's a civil matter.

This isn't about "protecting" Oracle (though there may be some $$$ influence involved), but rather more about protecting the copyright racket, strengthening it beyond the accepted scope.

APIs should not ever be copyrighted. Once you start doing that, it's only a matter of time before Disney copyrights all cartoon renderings of a mouse, or Nickelback gets to copyright all formulaic/generic rock.

Unfortunately... the Justice Department, likely at the behest of the White House, is intervening to influence copyright law and give corporations even more power. Ugh. It's like our government is pushing to see how far it can go to enslave citizens (the real, human kind, not the corporate nonsense kind) before they decide they've had enough of this shit.

I'd be inclined to chalk this up as a "First World Problem" but clamping down on technology denies everybody equal access. This is a serious infringement of our freedoms that will have a chilling effect on the progress of technology to help people in their daily lives everywhere in the world. It's not just about Java - it's about any programming language interface.

Re:Justice Department?

[Richard_at_work]

WTF do they have to do with this case? This isn't a criminal proceeding, it's a civil matter.

The Supreme Court asked the government to comment, and so they did.

Re:Justice Department?

[Anonymous Coward]

Separation of powers out the window then? Why is there even a supreme court if they need to ask the government for permission anyway? It seems like a waste of money.

Re:Justice Department?

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't asking for permission. They were asking for opinions.

Re:Justice Department?

[Anonymous Coward]

story

Oracle paid Bill Clinton a huge amount of money to give a speech as they were requesting favors from the State Department under his wife at the time. I suspect this is just some additional "favors" promised from their donation to Bill Clinton. This is a direct payment to Clinton, does not involve their foundation (which is another pot of corruption).

So it looks like Oracle basically paid the current executive branch to side with them in this and other things they are dealing with.

Re:Justice Department?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF do they have to do with this case? This isn't a criminal proceeding, it's a civil matter.

DOJ prosecuted Microsoft in the '90s. Oh, but that was different? Maybe not a "WTF".

Re:Justice Department?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the government's opinion matters... How exactly? Maybe the government should ask the supreme court about its opinions with regards to international politics?

Re:Justice Department?

[Immerman]

Where do you see anything about permission. They asked for *comment* - just because you ask someone for advice, doesn't mean you're bound to follow it.

Re:Justice Department?

[Anonymous Coward]

It only matters in the sense that the Supreme Court was curious of the answer.

Re:Justice Department?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF do they have to do with this case? This isn't a criminal proceeding, it's a civil matter.

Copyright law is a clearly designated power of the Federal Government, and in various ways, the Department of Justice is involved, as it is the lawyer for the government, so to speak. Well, in the Solicitor General's office.

The Supreme Court's legal clerks can do some research, but they are limited in their ability to speak for the Federal government, that role is also in other two places. The President and the Congress who respectively, can report their understanding of the law, and who can set up the original position.

The Supreme Court inviting the Solicitor general for an opinion is asking "Hey, what do you think" before deciding.

Because if they didn't, they'd just invite more issues.

Really, if they made a decision and Congress wanted to pass a law saying "Fuck this Supreme Court decision" then it would be overturned in a heartbeat.

Though whether the ruling itself would stand, I don't know, it'd depend on the particulars of the legislation and the decision.

Re:Justice Department?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You clearly haven't read the brief, or even have a basic understanding of the case (hint: API's are not copyrighted). If Google wins, there is no such thing as copyrighted software anymore. All software with available source code, can simply be pasted into the IDE of your choice and compiled. Everything will be totally free.

Anybody who wants to know what these cases are about can just read the Wikipedia article and find more information on the web:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O....

https://majadhondt.wordpress.c...

Either you have no understanding of the case, or you are Larry Ellison's towel boy and shilling for your sugar daddy.

Re:Justice Department?

[gstoddart]

WTF do they have to do with this case? This isn't a criminal proceeding, it's a civil matter.

You have already answered your own question:

Unfortunately... the Justice Department, likely at the behest of the White House, is intervening to influence copyright law and give corporations even more power.

The US government has more or less become the enforcement arm for the copyright lobby.

Which means they are now advancing copyright/corporate interests.

People who understand APIs understand it's a published contract about what your thing does ... and interfaces to APIs have been interoperable and open for a long time ... you can have your own implementation, but once you publish the API, it's possible for someone to implement it.

Ugh. It's like our government is pushing to see how far it can go to enslave citizens

As long as the corporations call the shots, and have "free speech", and apparently freedom of religion, and money is speech ... what you will find is government being completely beholden to industry. And an fair bit of people who think they know how to run a government saying this is a good idea.

Face it, the world is being coopted by corporate interests, and the laws are being increasingly written to benefit them.

The rest of us? Well, apparently we can't afford enough "speech" to actually get representation from government.

Democracy, but sold to the highest bidder. Which is usually a multinational corporation who is also avoiding taxes to the government who is handing them the keys to the kingdom.

Re:Justice Department?

[reg]

You clearly haven't read the brief, or even have a basic understanding of the case (hint: it is about APIs being copyrighted).

The rest of your post is just complete bull. I wish I had mod points today...

Re:Justice Department?

[sconeu]

The Groklaw archives have a good discussion of the original case heard by Judge Alsup.

Re:Justice Department?

[tobiasly]

WTF do they have to do with this case? This isn't a criminal proceeding, it's a civil matter.

I've absolutely given up on trying to figure out how our government works. Apparently SCOTUS specifically asked them for their opinion. And here I thought our founders wanted separation of powers, and in particular that the Supreme friggin' Court was intended to be insulated from the ebb and flow of political interests in the other two branches.

I could understand if the Justice Dept decided to file an amicus brief just like everyone else, but I can't understand why SCOTUS specifically sought their opinion.

Java API: Copyrighted, but hope for fair use!

[paskie]

TL;DR: US executive shares the appeals court opinion that APIs are copyrightable, but that does not mean the copyright is enforceable - there will be another court case that will be about if it's fair use to re-implement the (copyrighted) API.

Here is maybe the most important paragraph (italics mine):

Despite the inherently functional character of all computer code, the Copyright Act makes clear that such code can be copyrightable. Nothing about the declaring code (API declarations) at issue here materially distinguishes it from other computer code ... . Although petitioner has raised important concerns about the effects that enforcing respondent's copyright could have on software development, those concerns are better addressed through petitioner's fair-use defense, which will be considered on remand.

The brief is quite well readable (modulo the awful scribus ui), try it!

Re:Java API: Copyrighted, but hope for fair use!

[drinkypoo]

Java API: Copyrighted, but hope for fair use!

HOPE for CHANGE. Where have I heard this before?

Re:Java API: Copyrighted, but hope for fair use!

[bouldin]

Probably the "bright line" copyright distinction between APIs and actual works of art should come from the legislature, but our Congress is just as technologically illiterate as the judicial and executive branches.

Maybe in another 20 years we can have laws that actually bring us in to the 21st century.

Re:Java API: Copyrighted, but hope for fair use!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly my point in the letter I wrote to SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov.

"You either don't get the distinction between "declaring" code and "implementing" code, or are deliberately mis-representing facts when you state "Nothing about the declaring code at issue here materially distinguishes it from other computer code..."

Re:Java API: Copyrighted, but hope for fair use!

[RPI Geek]

I see at least one other person read TFA. Thank you for your accurate TL;DR:

Re:Java API: Copyrighted, but hope for fair use!

[Anonymous Coward]

The law already clearly states that APIs cannot be copyrighted.

Now, just ram that down the bastards throat with a bastard sword to make it stick.

Re: Java API: Copyrighted, but hope for fair use!

[hackwrench]

Scribus showed me three blank pages that apparently were supposed to have text on them then demanded I download their app if I wanted to see more.

Re:Java API: Copyrighted, but hope for fair use!

[suutar]

I think you give Congress too much credit. The executive branch, at least, has folks who have to actually work with technology.

The SCO dementors

[bunyip]

Once they declare the API to be copyrightable, the SCO dementors will arise and attempt once more to cast darkness over Linux. Darl McBride must be snickering as he reads the Justice Department's response...

Re:The SCO dementors

[Al Dunsmuir]

Too bad Groklaw is no longer active. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

If you go back and read the extensive coverage of the original trial, you would discover that you are arguing for the opposite of what the original court decided.

The decision was that the API _interface_ itself is not copyrightable, but the implementation behind that interface was. That is what open source (and any sane closed source) software project requires. The judge took the time to learn how to program Java as part of his research, and crafted a well-reasoned and documented response.

Re:The SCO dementors

[shentino]

I wouldn't be surprised if Groklaw would have been specifically targeted later had it not gone under.

is there an undeclared interest here?

[ihtoit]

Just asking, because it seems to me as if someone wants this matter to be declared settled as is and for no good reason other than to guarantee a payout.

Re:is there an undeclared interest here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Verilli, Jr. -- US Solicitor General

Early career involved litigating the interests of the RIAA in various court cases. Yes, there is an undeclared interest here - copyright "maximal-ism" for rent seekers.

Supreme court to DOJ, Challenge Accepted

[Proudrooster]

DOJ: We recommend you don't take this important copyright case.
SCOTUS: Oh really, why is that?
DOJ: Corporate interest mostly, we are looking to create a new form of monopoly power, and Larry Ellison has some really cool Sailboats.
SCOTUS: Thanks for your recommendation, we are looking forward to hearing this case and just added it to the docket.

Re:Supreme court to DOJ, Challenge Accepted

[Al Dunsmuir]

PJ, please come back, we miss you!

Actual dialog is: SCOTUS: DOJ, do you really want to give Oracle the power to control the world through over-reaching copyright? DOJ: Hell no... the original court got it right. SCOTUS: Cool. Justice is served. No reason to hand Larry all of Hawaii with a bow on it.

Re:Supreme court to DOJ, Challenge Accepted

[Immerman]

One can hope.

Re:Supreme court to DOJ, Challenge Accepted

[faway]

DOJ is corrupt. We know that from the fact then they did not prosecute Wall Street for their various crimes to do with derivatives.

Re:Supreme court to DOJ, Challenge Accepted

[Al Dunsmuir]

Be that as it may, they thankfully got this one right.

FUzzy thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

The DOJ agrees that you can't Copyright a programming language, but you can copyright a computer program written in a programming language.
They then say that the Java standard library can be copyrighted.
    I'm ok with this, because the implementation of the library is a lot more like a program than a language.

What I'm not ok with is Copyrighting the definition of the Java standard library.
    That seem a lot more like a language than a library.
    Even if the definition is written in header files which look like a program.

For a language like Java, while it is possible in theory to use the language separately from the library,
    this pretty much violates the reason for having the language in the first place.

compu

money

[Anonymous Coward]

Well we now know where the DOJ and the current ruling party is getting money from. Oracle. Anyone care to dig thru opensecrets to find it?

No

[s.petry]

Complete rubbish, go educate yourself.

If an API is not open-source, why isn't it private

[faway]

Let the case go forward. And let the FSF provide a free and open license for APIs. This is the only way. And let Google finally stop this nonsense of using Java and a virtual machine. It was dumb from the beginning, it's no less dumb now.

legacy of this administration

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Looks like Obama's primary legacy may be to enshrine API copyrights in law. If this had been the law of the land in the 80's and 90's, Linux and FOSS would never have gotten off the ground.

Re:legacy of this administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither would MS DOS.

Re:legacy of this administration

[russotto]

If this had been the law of the land in the 80's and 90's, Linux and FOSS would never have gotten off the ground.

If this had been the law of the land in the 90's, the BSD case would have gone very differently. So no Linux and no BSD.

Re:legacy of this administration

[Anonymous Coward]

And no IBM PC clones running MS-DOS.

Oracle

[Anonymous Coward]

When I saw the word oracle I thought of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle

Guess I've been interested in classical history.

Dead Java

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... uphold that API copyright claim and while in the short term Google will have to cough up, in the medium term Google will just write a replacement, or just put more effort into that Go thing of theirs and use it the same way Apple use Objective C. Android is Java only because the guys who started the project chose it. We could use Go just as easily.

.NET is now more free-as-in-freedom than Java

[wiredog]

Well, both Microsoft and Linux are led by Finns, right? Maybe it's the Finns...

A periodic formality, like adopting House rules

[tepples]

A pattern of Congress continually extending term lengths retroactively is not the same as a law declaring that copyrights do not expire, because the action that occurs if Congress does not act is that copyrights expire. Whereas in the latter scenario Congress has to act in order to make copyrights expire.

Each house of Congress also has to act every two years in order to set its rules. The requirement of a periodic formality to prevent copyrights from expiring does not change the practical outcome, just as the requirement of a periodic formality to readopt House and Senate rules every two years does not keep the House and Senate from having rules.

Nobody actually wants perpetual copyright terms, except maybe Disney.

And the Gershwin estate. And the leadership of the Motion Picture Assocation of America (to find sources, search the web for the phrase "forever less one day"). And Dr. Seuss Enterprises, whose argument in its Eldred amicus was that an author and his heirs deserve royalties from adaptations of the author's work to media invented decades after the work's first publication.

How much did Oracle pay that bastard?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously someone's wallet has been padded.

MOD PARENT UP!

[tlambert]

Or Google has been resisting the NSA a little too much.

This.

It's pretty obvious that this is a punishment for adding encryption to Android devices, and for going to SSL for all web transactions, making it much more difficult to spy, despite administrative objections.

The recommendation is clearly punitive because Google has pissed the executive off, and consistently opted on the side of data protection, and has disclosed many of the recently discovered OpenSSL and SSSL protocol flaws which made eavesdropping easier.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe - but I find it more likely that the government is simply just promoting a pro-IP stance because our economy is so heavily dependent on protecting those sorts of provisions.

If you've noticed in the leaked drafts of the TPP, the government takes a pretty strong stance on IP protection. You may also remember the time the federal government sent Homeland Security folks on scene after a movie theater called the cops over a dude who brought a Google Glass into a cinema. And I'm sure you are aware of our draconian state of copyright laws - DMCA and the ridiculously long copyright terms that companies now enjoy.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Coren22]

There are treatments for paranoid schizophrenia nowadays, you don't need to live with the disorder.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there treatments for head up you know where?

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not paranoia if they actually are listening to you...

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the treatment for ignorance isn't

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[tlambert]

Maybe - but I find it more likely that the government is simply just promoting a pro-IP stance because our economy is so heavily dependent on protecting those sorts of provisions.

Meddia is not the same thing as software, so your examples really don't apply in this case. Better examples are:

ASHTON-TATE CORP. v. FOX SOFTWARE, INC. -- NO. CV 88-6837 TJH (TX).

Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International. U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts. June 28, 1990. 740 F.Supp. 37, 15 USPQ2d 1577

The interpretation that the federal government is holding forth here is that both of these cases were adjudicated incorrectly.

If the Supreme Court fails to hear the current case, both of those previous cases are defacto overturned.

You can effectively say "goodbye" to the software industry, if companies are allowed to enforce interface copyrights. At least in the U.S.. Obviously, other countries will just ignore the U.S.'s idiocy, and continue on their merry way, and quickly surpass the U.S. in software development, just as they have in other economic areas.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Chalnoth]

Our economy is not dependent upon IP. There is far, far more money in effectively IP-free industries (such as fashion).

It's just there there's a relatively small number of powerful interest groups that push IP, and the case for IP sounds reasonable to those who lack the imagination to consider other ways of funding inventors and artists.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[dabrowsa]

"Maybe - but I find it more likely that the government is simply just promoting a pro-IP stance because our economy is^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h plutocrats are so heavily dependent on protecting those sorts of provisions."

Fixed that for you.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

under the same text that defines paranoid schizophrenia, being creative is a disorder.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[shentino]

Our economy is being held hostage by IP.

So yeah, we kinda depend on it in the same way as a liquor store depends on protection from the mafia not to get robbed.

Section 102(b) covers this clearly....

[Anonymous Coward]

“[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery, regardless of the form in which it isembodied in such work.”

That's as clear a definition of an API as is possible.

You claim you're a security engineer? Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody uses hosts files for security" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:53PM (#49746865)

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

SpyBot S&D does!

---

NOD32/ESET's says hosts = good security http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I "overturned" an expert on a false positive on my Hosts program who gave in!

(MalwareBytes' employee VETTED it & hosts + RECOMMENDS it-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

Mr. Oliver Day @ Symantec/Norton does: http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

Bouldin denied it:

"I don't see Oliver Day of SecurityFocus on there" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @08:43PM (#49747763)

FROM-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

---

Bouldin wrote a ware that secures you + SPEEDS YOU UP (vs antivirus - not as effective vs. online threats, mine is stopping infestation BEFORE it gets you & IF in you stops communique BACK to C&C!) security pros second me on? No.

---

Bouldin AGREES hosts yield security, speed, reliability, & anonymity:

"Hosts files are NOT effective at blocking command&control of botnets. I actually agree with most of the rest of the list, but hosts files are not the silver bullet you make them out to be." - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:53PM (#49746865)

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

I never said hosts "cure all" + challenged him to show where I have - he couldn't.

Then Bouldin RAN vs. https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/m... since served up by host names hosts block.

(He *tried* DGA botnets later & they're ephemerals - LOW infection odds & below KILLS 'em + e.g.: 0.0.0.0 DGABotnetCandC#.com )

---

Bouldin tried Python scripts w/ DNS to rogue DNS server (firewalls stop this)!

Can't sneak it in: I CUTOFF AVENUES TO IT in my security guides (that use hosts too):

E.G.-> http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

http://forums.pcpitstop.com/in...

(Based on CIS Tool an esteemed security tool I've put fixes in)

APK

P.S.=> See subject: Prove it after those messes above... apk

You can't copyright a title

[Mike Morgan]

Wouldn't this be akin to attempting to copyright a book title? Each API is a title for the implementation it describes. You can not copyright titles, names , short phrases and slogans. An API seems to fall squarely into all of these.

IANAL: Sun/MSFT vs Oracle/Google ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft had their own version of Java, Visual J++. How are these situations different?

Re:IANAL: Sun/MSFT vs Oracle/Google ???

[rubycodez]

Microsoft licensed Java from Sun, but there was problem that compliance to license meant passing compatibility tests so Sun later sued Microsoft. Microsoft paid their way out of that situation but later dropped J++ itself. It reused some of that tech in other products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

Re:IANAL: Sun/MSFT vs Oracle/Google ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Android doesn't implement the entire Java API. Android was going to use Java, but Sun refused to allow Google to drop stuff that wasn't suitable for Mobile devices. So Google made their incompatible Dalvik VM instead.

Explaining API copyright to lawyers/judges

[istartedi]

You're honor, you probably don't want to read the case. "Why not. It's a matter of public record". Yes, but the index is copyrighted. It's $5000/copy. Good luck finding the case without the index. "$5000 per copy? That's preposterous. Indexing is trivial compared to the arguments in the case". Why yes, yes it is...

Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright 2015 Tjp

int foo(int bar);

I claim this api and all derived works of a function taking an integer and returning an integer as my protected API.

I further claim that through translation, float foo(float bar); is also covered as a derived work, along with all similar APIs.

I further claim that through translation, int oracle(int isRidiculus); is also covered as a derived work, along with all similar APIs.

I claim additionally that through combination, float oracle(float stillRidiculus); is also covered as a derived work, along with all similar APIs.

See a problem here?

We all knew Java was a sinking ship

[engineerErrant]

...since 2009, and we shouldn't be too shocked here.

I am a longtime Java engineer and was genuinely furious at the slow, humiliating decline I knew was coming for the language when the Lich King decided to buy Sun Microsystems. But I am past that, and for years have been preparing for the day when I would step off that ship instead of going down with it, as I think any engineer who's aware of the industry ought to be doing.

The main complication here is Google's insistence on keeping it alive, and even doubling down on it rather than taking the much smarter approach that Apple did with Objective-C. Go and Dart are both solid languages, but Google just isn't taking them seriously enough to make either the new lingua franca of the 2020s (yet).

Re:We all knew Java was a sinking ship

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, Google didn't develope Android, but bought the company that was developing it, so many of these decisions were made and not trivial to change long before Android 1.0 came out. Using a VM was a no-brainer for compatibility across hardware (Apple doesn't have to worry about that) and the two obvious choices for VMs are Java and .Net, only one of which was easily licensable at the time. And it would have been proper Java, too, but discussions with Sun (long before Oracle was eying them) broke down, resulting in Dalvik VM's creation.

Nokia

[emil]

If this is so, then Nokia can now assert copyright over fork().

Nokia now owns Bell Labs through a long chain of acquisitions. Bell Labs publicly asserted copyright over fork() in the Lions Commentary.

Nokia should now assert infringement over Solaris and the UEK. A sizable portion of Exadata revenues are fairly owed should this decision stand.

No. Solicitor General's Office is Good

[Etherwalk]

Oracle must have contributed to the right Administration official.

No.

The United States Solicitor General's Office writes a *LOT* of these "op" briefs. Generally ten pages saying "This case isn't so magically important that SCOTUS should look at it among the thousands of cases people are asking to look at." Taking that position on a case is the default position and nothing should be read into it.

They are for the most part really top-tier professionals who are trying to make the decision based on what is best for the US Government as an institution. Not influenced very much by politics. They are widely considered the "tenth justice," and really care about (1) whether the case is important, (2) whether the case presents the issues it's about well (i.e. is it a good vehicle for the issue), (3) whether the case has facts that are favorable for getting to what the government thinks is in its interest, etc...

They do call around to get the opinions of the various affected agencies in determining whether to support an appeal. They probably talked to someone from the PTO when figuring out what the government position should be.

But at the end of the day, it's important to realize that SCOTUS can still take up the issue in another case if they want to--maybe one with better facts, etc...; and they won't be bound by the Federal Circuit's ruling here.

Re:No. Solicitor General's Office is Good

[paavo512]

They are for the most part really top-tier professionals who are trying to make the decision based on what is best for the US Government as an institution. Not influenced very much by politics. They are widely considered the "tenth justice," and really care about (1) whether the case is important, (2) whether the case presents the issues it's about well (i.e. is it a good vehicle for the issue), (3) whether the case has facts that are favorable for getting to what the government thinks is in its interest, etc...

Well, in this case they have clearly failed as the case is obviously very important (can overturn the whole concept of SDK-s) and is pretty clear-cut. So it appears the government thinks it's in its interest to sink the whole digital revolution. Well, considering that a moderate AI might perform better in their jobs, they might be right...

Re:No. Solicitor General's Office is Good

[jonwil]

The SCOTUS is free to ignore the DOJ on this and take the case anyway.

Obama corrupt? No way!

[Anonymous Coward]

But our prophet and savior, the great hope, is being swayed by corporate bigwigs into corrupt practices? It can't be! He would never do that. He's a cool guy and he only wants to help the little guy and give out free healthcare. *sarcasm*

APIs Should be Copyrightable

[Anonymous Coward]

And by API I mean a set, well-organized package of classes, functions, fields, that combined provide a platform.

Of course the method "void foo(String a);" can't by copyrightable. But a set of packages under a namespace that required thoughtful thinking, pretty much like writing a book, should be copyrightable. People tend to believe that writing software based on an existing documentation or specification is hard, that is hard to comply with all the requirements. But it is much harder to come up with those specifications, documentation, etc, how to put everything together.

And let me tell you why. I have a Cloud service that provides a set of REST APIs and those functions required lots of design thinking before going to implementation phase. If APIs can't be copyrighted, soon enough someone will come up with the same offering service, by simply copying my APIs, giving to some Asian company to do the implementation, and all a customer will need to do to shift from my service to this lame competitor, will be changing the hostname of the server in the REST calls. Hell, even that is not needed if the admin is smart enough to edit /etc/hosts. Thanks copyleft APIs, all my investment screwed by you. If I wanted to have interoperability with someone or let someone copy part of or all my API because I happen to believe this would be good to my business, then I would do that. Otherwise, I want to hold the right to copyright it and ask for commercial agreements (ROI from my design thinking) if one wants to use.

So yes, I believe APIs should be copyrightable.

Re:APIs Should be Copyrightable

[Anonymous Coward]

And to say that Android had "unfair use" of the APIs, it is important to understand why they did that. Android (not Google but the previous company) copied lots of stuff in order to allow Java developers to build Android apps. Clearly, a smart move to avoid having to design and introduce a new language, and a new development platform, which would be difficult to be absorbed by developers communities. They saved a lot of money, while also attracting thousands of developers, and enabling hundreds of existing Java libraries to run inside Android. All they had to do was to design part of the solution, the android.* packages, to provide specific APIs for coding Android OS-based applications and interfaces.

On the other hand, the actual Java Platform suffered from this because the "Java version in Android" was not able to run *any* sort of compliant Java application (because the runtime was not compliant with any edition). Even some Java libraries still today (no UI) can't run OOTB on Android OS because Java in there is not entirely compatible.

Great loss for the platform, great win for Android though. Instead of working together with the community and the companies that support Java, they decided to go their own way. And now here we are.

SQL

[Anonymous Coward]

Who owns the SQL API if APIs are protected by copyright?
IBM? ANSI? ISO?

SSSL?

[PetiePooo]

... OpenSSL and SSSL protocol flaws ...

South Shore Soccer League has a protocol of their own? ;)

Eminent public domain

[tepples]

It also means that if we got a Congress that actually wanted to retroactively shorten copyright terms they can.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Major copyright owners would consider a term reduction to be "private property be[ing] taken for public use, without just compensation" per the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution (and foreign counterparts) and sue the government for said "just compensation".

The Supreme Court is never wrong

[tepples]

the courts are wrong

By definition, the Supreme Court of the United States is never wrong. Only an amendment can override the Supreme Court's opinion on a statute's constitutionality.