Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Denies Google's Request To Appeal Oracle API Case
New submitter Neil_Brown writes: The Supreme Court of the United States has today denied Google's request to appeal against the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling (PDF) that the structure, sequence and organization of 37 of Oracle's APIs (application program interfaces) was capable of copyright protection. The case is not over, as Google can now seek to argue that, despite the APIs being restricted by copyright, its handling amounts to "fair use". Professor Pamela Samuelson has previously commented (PDF) on the implications if SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal. The Verge reports: "A district court ruled in Google's favor back in 2012, calling the API "a utilitarian and functional set of symbols" that couldn't be tied up by copyrights. Last May, a federal appeals court overturned that ruling by calling the Java API copyrightable. However, the court said that Google could still have lawfully used the APIs under fair use, sending the case back to a lower court to argue the issue. That's where Google will have to go next, now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear the issue over copyright itself.
That's right. They used the API that Linux uses in its libgc.
Ergo the copyright of their work is now GPL.
> Google illegally copied Oracle's shit. Deal with it.
This would make sense to anybody who has never done any actual programming.
If APIs are copyrightable then all instances of API use will be by permission. Decades of software innovation extinguished in one court ruling.
Don't link to the verge. Bunch of morons that do stuff like post articles like "I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing"
You mean in the same way that a manufacturer of a spoon "illegally copied" information about a human mouth?
In the same way that a road construction crew "illegally copied" information about wheels being round?
In the same way that a manufacturer of a catheter "illegally copied" information about urethra?
This is API, API is information about CONNECTING pieces together, it is a contract information, definition of connectivity, not implementation details.
This is not a problem that is just related to Java somehow either, this concerns everything, every language, nearly every field and industry.
You can't handle the truth.
A function name and parameter spec is now "someone's shit"? Oracle's position is about as sensible as SCO's was.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In the case of phone books the bulk of content inside of them isn't copyrightable (names, phone numbers, addresses) but the organization and presentation of them is. I think that may be the hair splitting that is going on here.
You don't know what you're talking about. So zip it.
Except there was absolutely zero copying done. Fact check before posting please.
So ... basically every modern implementation of C illegally copied AT&T's or K&R's shit?
Mono has illegally copied Microsoft's shit?
The API is a contract, which you publish in order to allow people to use it. But you specifically do publish it.
Java was released by Sun without licensing, just saying you needed to be compatible with the core and not screw things up -- and now retroactively Oracle can claim copyright on it? There sure as hell were other implementations of Java out there which nobody was complaining about.
That pretty much sounds like bullshit. Interoperability is part of fair use. Have we so thoroughly eroded this concept that the copyright lawyers have won?
I'm pretty sure at the time Google was copying those interfaces, not a damned person EVER suggested this required licensing.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Hear hear! Now let's go turn ourselves in for infringing on Webster's famous API for the English Language.
Fucking lawyers - Do we think we can just go around using words without paying their rightful owner?
fopen(..) is now fjopen(...)
fclose(..) becomes jfclose(..), etc.
An API - an Application Programming Interface.
What an interface is:
- An agreed scheme to interact with a software component.
- A set of standards for interacting with a software component.
- A process encompassing an interaction with a software component.
class HowToWin {
public:
virtual void Profit() = 0;
};
This interface doesn't describe how Profit() works, it merely describes in vague terms "HowToWin" (the implementation is left to the reader).
This is another useless API:
class DoStuff {
public:
virtual void DoTheStuff() = 0;
};
Good luck copyrighting that though.
The API is a small part of a piece of software but it's by no means insignificant and lots of time and effort (hopefully) goes into constructing them. Other people rely on the interfaces to design their components around these APIs. You can't claim copyright on a "way to use your stuff" as that basically puts the kibosh on anyone trying to bridge your software to another design. Think virtualization.
Why hasn't Dell sued VMWare for "copying the interface to PC hardware"?
Call me a pedant, but
> copied shit exactly
Android Inc didn't copy/paste shit; that would be exactly. They built their own VM that runs the same bytecode compile-able from the same source that's freely available all over this mess of the internet. See OpenJDK.
they copied the structure, not the code.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Google has the money and the talent to build a completely new mobile OS based on Linux. Why not just do that and cut Oracle out of the loop entirely???
That would be sufficient to make the APIs stop working. Perhaps you should think again about what information is required and copyrightable.
I think that this decision may mean that Google will need to do something like alphabetize the API. (Customized organization can be copyrighted, but alphabetical order can't.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That pretty much sounds like bullshit. Interoperability is part of fair use. Have we so thoroughly eroded this concept that the copyright lawyers have won?
But tell me, where is the interoperability with Java? Google has its own VM, so they don't really need Java interoperability.
And yet something written against the Java API can fairly trivially be made to work against the Google API -- well, in theory.
The interfaces for APIs have been borrowed and re-implemented for literally decades. If you retroactively go back and say all of them are licensed and you need to pay money ... you fuck up the entirety of computing history.
Like I said, the standard C library, most of POSIX, the C++ template libraries, Mono ... all sorts of stuff was basically a re-implementation of an API.
This ruling completely ignores several decades worth of precedent, and grants Oracle something nobody else has ever had.
Hell, even Microsoft's vaporware to provide Android support is covered by this. This has very far reaching implications, and makes no sense in the context of computers since the 70s.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
hold on, if Google loses this case, what would the effect be on the free software foundation ? they are always copying APIs. that is their modus operandi. with the FSF have to embark on many new projects that are original instead of imitative?
Re-read his sentence very carefully. That word "never" is easy to trip over in how he used it. To straighten it out where it's not a convoluted statement, he's saying that the statement "Google illegally copied Oracle's shit. Deal with it," would not make sense to anyone who's actually done any programming.
Fucking lawyers just never stop.
Google illegally copied Oracle's shit. Deal with it.
The 13 words in your post are currently under copyright protection and owned by me.
(As symbols required for interaction are now copyrightable, aka APIs, aka all words in a language)
You can paypal my $10000 per word usage licensing fee and I will refrain from opening a lawsuit against you.
As you say, pay up and deal with it.
Of course they can claim copyright on it. Just because Sun allowed people to use it without licensing does not mean it was not covered by copyright. Jesus on a fucking stick, what the hell are you doing on Slashdot if you don't understand the barest basics of copyright. It's not like copyright hasn't been a constant subject since day one.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
The time to ditch Java was 10 years ago.
Oracle's very existence is reliant upon open APIs.
Part of Oracle Corporation's early success arose from using the C programming language to implement its products. This eased porting to different operating systems (most of which support C).
Without open APIs and language calls, Oracle would have had to write code with whatever programming language was available on the systems they wanted to support.
That's right, Oracle Database would be but a minor software application relegated to insignificance were it not for C's open API and language functionality that allowed all vendors to make C available on their platforms.
Except that in this case, with the exception of the original judge, all other judges have agreed with Oracle's position. I guess the "devil is in the details" and judging it based on ready a quick read of the case's summary (as presented by the opponents) won't be enough for the legal pros.
Ah OK, you could handle a copyright law case, and those are all decided on the basis of pure logic, and the one true belief in copyright that is appropriate happens to be your view.
Or you're a twat.
Fucking lawyers just never stop. Google illegally copied Oracle's shit. Deal with it.
No. This is about making API compatible calls. Plain and simple.
Can/Should Oracle be able to copyright something like these ?
No. And I thought this had already been solved with C Header files.
UPS Sucks
Does that mean that Bell Labs can now sue the creator of every C program for copying the C stack frame (call API) ?
So can we hurry up and switch Android to Swift? That'll solve everything.
So, what exactly does this do to the Open Source movement?
It was my understanding that Java had been open sourced and that made what Android did allowable, and long as the open source agreement lived on is Androids code
Now we see Oracle applying copyright law to Java...
So... did Oracle remove Java from open source?
Are the parts of Java that Oracle claims copyright over not open source?
Has Open Source just been ignored (and invalidated) by the federal court system?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Correct. And _unfortunately_ structure is very much copyrightable. I personally thought that the trial court's opinion which found for Google very strong and persuasive. But anybody who actually knows copyright law knows that the trial court was going out on a limb, and it should surprise _nobody_ that he was overturned on appeal, and that SCOTUS declined to come to his rescue.
Look, you guys need to stop listening to people who work at the Harvard Berkman Center, or similar FOSS advocates with law degrees. We should all _hope_ that their arguments will become the law of the land some day. But their interpretations of copyright law are sadly far from the mainstream. They make it sound like their arguments are slam dunks, but remember that they're lawyers! Worse, they're legal academics! Their whole purpose in life is to persuade people to adopt their perspectives, and what better way to do that than tell people flat out that their perspective is obvious, intuitive, and uncontroversial.
Hopefully Google will still win on Fair Use. It would have been much better if the appeals courts held that APIs were simply not copyrightable. But the fact of the matter is that such a ruling would have been a significant change in copyright law. The appeals courts weren't persuaded to take that step. Them doing so was made less likely by the fact that Fair Use provides a convenient way for courts to mitigate the impact of strong copyright law in narrow cases. So, for example, if they had held that the structure of code and APIs was not copyrightable, it would have had far reaching implications for other fields, like music, film, etc. IMO that would have been a good thing, but the appeals courts didn't want to rock the boat. A Fair Use exception will allow them (if they choose) to effectively exclude APIs without threatening to upturn industry expectations generally.
That would be sufficient to make the APIs stop working. Perhaps you should think again about what information is required and copyrightable.
I think that this decision may mean that Google will need to do something like alphabetize the API. (Customized organization can be copyrighted, but alphabetical order can't.)
Nah, I'm pretty sure Google will win the case against Oracle. There are at least two more defenses they can fall back on.
First, exactly what the summary mentioned: Fair Use. Fair Use is complicated and there are multiple factors to consider but courts generally come down strongest on the economic questions, and there the question is whether Google's action devalued Oracle's property. Speculatively, suppose that Google had had to create its own set of APIs. They could absolutely have been modeled on the Java APIs, but would need to use different names, etc. Google could well have taken the opportunity to clean up a lot of crufty corners of the Java APIs. This would have been a significant undertaking for Google, but wouldn't have been prohibitive by any means. Not doing it saved Google money, but the more interesting question is what was the impact on Java?
I think Google has a really compelling argument that using the Java APIs in what has become the world's dominant personal computing platform's primary development toolset has increased the value of the Java APIs. Although Java was originally built with embedded and mobile devices in mind, without Android it would likely be relegated to being a big systems application language only.
There are probably other Fair Use angles to attack, but that's the one that jumps out at me.
The second defense, and one that seems absolutely deadly to Oracle's claims, is promissory estoppel. Google very much had Sun's approval and cooperation when they decided to use the Java APIs for Android, so it's really nasty of Oracle to try to take that back now, and courts don't buy it.
It would have been better if Google could have established the general principle that APIs are not copyrightable. They shouldn't be, and establishing that would be good for the whole software industry. Barring that, the Fair Use defense could establish a precedent that is almost as good. The estoppel argument solves Google's problem but doesn't do anything to make the industry better.
and now retroactively Oracle can claim copyright on it?
No, there's no retroactive claim necessary under the Berne Convention - everything anybody ever writes is automatically copyrighted. All expression is by default subsumed by the State under that treaty (so cut the guys going apeshit over TPP some slack).
You wanted the government controlling every aspect of human interaction, you got it. Now the US software industry can proceed to burn in flames, the way the democracy wants (hence the term democracide).
If there's a silver lining, it's that this will breed further contempt for the law among the educated. As they flee its jurisdiction.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Fucking lawyers just never stop. Google illegally copied Oracle's shit. Deal with it.
No. This is about making API compatible calls. Plain and simple.
Can/Should Oracle be able to copyright something like these ?
No. And I thought this had already been solved with C Header files.
Well, the Java folk always wanted to distance themselves from the C/C++ folk.
:D
And now we have another reason to avoid Java to boot.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
My position on copyrights and patents was always the same: abolish all patents and copyrights and prevent government from providing monopolies with these laws.
Basically this is nearly the ultimate absurd result that we are seeing here and it probably can even get worse. You want to build a road somewhere? Well, you are violating a copyright on other people building horizontal surfaces to allow circular wheels (and legs I suppose) to run on them. You want to build a house? Are you going to have a roof? Foundation? Walls? Windows? Doors? Fucking copyright violator. Absurd, isn't it? Or is it really absurd to expect that ruling like that can actually be passed given the fact that it is a government entity that can pass that ruling and given that governments are already given authority to rule on these issues?
No, the real solution is not even about money exchanging hands (though I wouldn't be surprised in case of Oracle), it is about the power that governments have over our heads, and this power is as insane as it is absurd.
No company or person should be given government protected monopoly on anything, including any invention, copyright, whatever. That's not how evolution works, that's not how cultures worked and still keep working. That type of power is destructive, not constructive in any way. Let the people and companies decide how to provide their services and products in a world that does not automatically protect them from any type of competition. At the very least this cannot be a power granted to government, deal with these issues on contract basis and using trade secrets if you must.
Anyway, I can only leave 1 or 2 comments here now given that 24 hours passed since my account's 'karma' was obliterated again by moderators who want to make sure I cannot reply to comments made to me, so don't expect many comments here either.
You can't handle the truth.
So... did Oracle remove Java from open source?
Worse they put it under GPLv2 and use that to the full extend possible. The Code is open just like patents this can now be used to sue everyone who implements something remotely similar (a.k.a. commits large scale copy right infringement ) into oblivion. Not to forget that even if people apply the GPLv2 it does not have the patent exceptions of the GPLv3, so Oracle can still steam roll any alternative implementation they don't want ( even Microsoft could only legally implement C# with the patent deal they made with Sun ). Follow that up with Oracle owning the Java trademark and it is game over from the start, since the only way to pass the Java certification required to use it requires that you comply with whatever Oracle demands( next to actually implementing the full JRE, which Google never planned to do either).
Now you might ask why all other Java implementations where not sued. One of Suns cash cows was Java ME, the only Java environment for feature phones back before smart phones where common and it came with license fees attached. The Android VM was a direct attack on that market and Google was well aware what Sun and later Oracle thought about giving up that income.
And to anybody who has.
Only the ones for whom a range check is the peak of skill.
.: Semper Absurda
He's referring to the 9 lines of array bounds checking code that was "copied" (boilerplate code copy-pasted by the same programmer who wrote it originally).
.: Semper Absurda
A Fair Use exception will allow them (if they choose) to effectively exclude APIs without threatening to upturn industry expectations generally.
Unfortunately, fair use claims are judged on a case-by-case basis. Even if Google prevails on this issue, API implementation will be too risky for individual programmers or small companies to undertake.
.: Semper Absurda
Mod AC up.
The trial court ruling is how things ought to be, but how things actually are is a much different story, as reflected by the CAFC and SCOTUS.
You need a vanishingly small amount of originality to meet the copyrightability threshold. Like choosing categories for yellow pages rather than listing everything alphabetically. Like selecting and arranging public domain stories. Like adding a few lines to someone else's pictures.
It's worth arguing that even by the lowest standards, the APIs do not possess even a modicum of creativity. It's also worth arguing that they are so purely functional on a basic and elementary level that they should not be afforded copyright protection at all. But since the higher court rulings force us to concede copyrightability arguments, what's left to argue is that Google's use of these validly copyrighted APIs was fair and thus permissible.
Nothing posted to
> Google illegally copied Oracle's shit. Deal with it.
That's a hard position to take here with all the opinionated freeloading IP burglars since when they are not whining about ISPs (ex. Comcast, ATT) limiting their content stealing abilities, or worshiping environment destroying gadget companies (ex. Apple), or criticizing anyone (ex. Microsoft) who wishes to turn a hard-earned buck for the quality software they produce at great expense, the residents spew their hateful anger at those (ex. Oracle) who wish to protect their IP from downright theft in order to keep innovating to benefit the rest of humanity and instead put their full support behind those who steal this IP for the purpose of collecting as much personal data globally as possible and creating massively invasive advertising systems (ex. Google) at the lowest cost possible, or at those (ex. SCO) who are victim of plagiarism (ex. IBM) so they can perform their dubious computing activities for free (ex. Linux).
Now trying saying that with a full breath of air to fully grasp the essence of this site!
How is this any different than Intel copyrighting x86 instruction code. AMD can also claim that they wanted to be compatible with binaries for x86.
If there's a silver lining, it's that this will breed further contempt for the law among the educated. As they flee its jurisdiction.
It will also breed further contempt for Java. Has Oracle thought this one thr- OK, sorry, stupid question
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Are you really retarded or just acting like one. "Copied" and "illegally copied" are two different terms. Only courts can decide whether this was illegally copied or not and it is not yet settled case. Modern C may be a copy of K&R C, but that does not mean it is illegally copied.
The API is only a specification, a list of functions and arguments. Like a phone book is a list of names and phone numbers.
Oh, and you assume Linux owns it's API. The Linux API is based on the UNIX API as much as Google's Android API is based on Java. Therefore, by your logic, who ever owns UNIX owns the Linux API. Do you have permission to use the UNIX API?
> it's really nasty of Oracle to try to take that back now
Wasn't that the Rambus business model?
You need to remember that Larry Ellison was very good friends with Steve Jobs and he's also good friends with Bill Gates. So Larry is just trying to get "revenge" for his late buddy. In fact, buying Sun was probably part of his plan after he learned about Google using Java. Unfortunately, it's not going to end well for Larry Ellison once IBM starts demanding their royalty payments for the use of SQL.
Sounds like we're about to see SCO's old case validated because of this mess. This is absolute bullshit.
It's as if you know nothing about the case whatsoever. There was no code copied. This case has to do with the SSO of API's. If you don't know what SSO is then take 10 minutes of your time and research it. It would have prevented you rambling on about something you completely misunderstood.
Additionally, the reason for Google creating their own VM was to use a register based VM instead of a stack based one. Since register based VM's use drastically less memory it was more appropriate for an embedded device. I won't even bother responding to the reset of your ludicrous statements or insinuations as they're based on ignorance rather than facts.
Everyone who's ever typed:
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
Better get their check books out and start sending royalties to Dennis Ritchie and/or AT&T.
So I understand, the next step in this charade will be - making European Union drop their own interoperability-preserving laws in favor of this redefinition of copyright. TTIP anyone?
If specifications alone can be copyrighted, then the software industry is in for a world of hurt.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
One of the things that came out during the SCO mess was that SCO didn't own the Unix copyrights. Novell still had them, and Novell wasn't interested in using them to make trouble for Linux. (At least not then, anyway.)
So this ruling doesn't do SCO's pathetic "case" any good.
I think Google has a really compelling argument that using the Java APIs in what has become the world's dominant personal computing platform's primary development toolset has increased the value of the Java APIs.
Unfortunately, that's not really how that swings. If you make for example a movie adaptation of a book it might drive book sales, but your use is primarily a replacement for a commercial opportunity to sell the movie rights. Sun/Oracle was selling Java ME licenses, Android was pretty clearly created to avoid those license terms. If we first assume the API is copyrighted, that does not seem like a typical fair use. The purpose is not interoperability with Java, it's to substitute it so the character of use is also against it and clearly they replicate a substantial amount of the API. The only factor that really speaks in favor of fair use is the nature of the work, which is purely descriptive and necessary to achieve the same functional operation.
Part of me want to agree a little bit with Oracle though, clearly designing an API is a creative effort. It's not merely stating a bunch of facts where somebody else designing an API would have to come up with something very, very similar. But the whole purpose of an API is to have a standardized way to interact with it, like being able to copyright where the brake pedal goes so nobody else can put it in the same spot and have it work in the same way. Like, I can't really think of a non-fair way to use an API which is why it shouldn't be copyrighted in the first place.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That we can finally say goodbye to the shit hole Java and switch to Dart?
If there's a silver lining, it's that this will breed further contempt for the law among the educated. As they flee its jurisdiction.
Very little of the industrialized world is outside the jurisdiction of the Berne Convention. Where were you imagining that they would flee?
So who's next? It seems like "fopen" exists in every language/library I've ever used.
Google should differentiate their API from Oracle's and watch Oracle cry for them to switch back. Given the choice between Oracle or Google, which would you choose?
What good does it do to have a Supreme Court if they refuse to hear cases where we need a Supreme legal decision/definition?
I love the response from the suicide girls company. That is a great way to fight back at that guy's tactic.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
My guess is there's a distinction between an individual function/method signature and the entire API.
Arguing that Larry Ellison is going to come after you over a int min(int a, int b) function is a bit like all of the crazy rednecks that always say Obama is coming for all of their guns every time there's any kind of weapons bill in Congress.
It seems unlikely that you can lay claim to a single signature any more than you can copyright an individual sentence in a book and prevent someone else from using it. Not that it makes the decision any better, but spewing alarmist nonsense isn't being honest.
A function name and parameter spec is now "someone's shit"? Oracle's position is about as sensible as SCO's was.
It's actually a whole lot more hilarious than that.
If Oracle wins, Oracle just put themselves out of business, or worse in prison since their entire business relies on a criminal act.
If APIs can be copyrighted and clean room reverse engineering is made illegal, it isn't just that no one can use Java APIs without Oracles permission, but Oracle can't use Win32 APIs without Microsofts permission, except Microsoft can't grant that permission as they were never given permission from IBM to use BIOS or EFI API calls.
Seeing as this reverses the entire Gateway cleanroom reverse engineering of the BIOS, it is IBM alone and solely that has authority to dictate who uses their API, which means any OS that runs on Intel chips is illegal.
Since Oracle's business is 100% based on software that illegally uses APIs they have no permission to use, extra laws kick in since there is not a single legal use of any of the works that comes from Oracle, all 100% of their works are specifically designed for and do nothing but violate copyright law.
Goodbye Oracle!
That's a hard position to take here with all the opinionated freeloading IP burglars since when they are not whining about ISPs (ex. Comcast, ATT) limiting their content stealing abilities
How is it "content stealing" to view licensed video through Netflix? Or are you claiming that Netflix's license to the video it offers is invalid?
or criticizing anyone (ex. Microsoft) who wishes to turn a hard-earned buck for the quality software they produce at great expense
Most of us don't criticize wanting to earn a buck. We criticize anticompetitive methods of doing so, such as exclusive (or effectively exclusive) deals with all leading manufacturers of a particular class of hardware.
the residents spew their hateful anger at those (ex. Oracle) who wish to protect their IP
What is "IP"? Copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret are very different beasts. If you mean copyright, say copyright. If you mean patent, say patent. If you mean trademark, say trademark. If you mean trade secret, say trade secret. Or did you mean stealing an IP address?
from downright theft
Copyright infringement and theft are distinct offenses. In the United States, the former is always federal, and the latter is generally handled by the several states, becoming federal only if goods are carried across state lines.
Would you contribute to a future project like Samba or Wine now?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Oracle killed it, when they filed this case. It is simply too risky to use APIs, over which some deranged company is asserting copyright.
Copying an API and the GPL/LGPL issue are two different things.
What WINE does, re-implementing someone else's programming interface, is what's at stake here.
Using that interface is not.
The GPL considers a program linking to your code libraries to be a derivative work. The LGPL is meant to allow non-GPL compatible software to link to GPL libraries.
AMD has a license from Intel for x86 as part of the 1981 second source arrangement between IBM and Intel.
It was my understanding that Java had been open sourced and that made what Android did allowable, and long as the open source agreement lived on is Androids code
The open source java, OpenJDK, is licensed basically under the GPLv2 (with the runtime classpath exception). If Google took that code and used it, they would have to put their code under the GPL. They didn't. They took the code (actually, just the API definitions) and put it under a different license. It's like taking code licensed under BSD and putting it under the GPL - unless you are the owner of the code it's a license violation and you can no longer use the code.
This lawsuite would have had no leg to stand on if Google took code from OpenJDK and used it, but they didn't. As far as I can tell, OpenJDK didn't enter into the picture at all.
Now, I still think copyrights applying to API is a terrible decision, but I just wanted to clarify the situation about OpenJDK vs Android "Open Source".
Having had personal technical experience with both Java ME and Android, I gotta say that from a technology point of view, Java ME was a complete and total dead-end. It was far, far different from vanilla desktop/server java than Android is and therefore had practically zero notice or integration with the Java ecosystem. It was designed to work within the restrictions of devices that had single or double-digit CPU MHz and RAM MBs. It was modelled around Java 1.1, with almost no new language features or APIs. RIM used it as the basis for Blackberry and as a developer, I can tell you it was a decision they regretted.
Android is essentially vanilla Java with only the most esoteric of APIs removed from it, and then device-specific APIs placed on top of it. You can use 95% of existing java desktop/server libraries without any modification. If Google was given the option of using Java ME absolutely for free, or developing their own language and APIs, I guarantee they would have made their own because there would have been a riot among their software developers who would have been forced to essentially develop all of the libraries and google apps using the software equivalent of alphabet blocks and duplo. The additional "device profiles" that were subsequently released were too little, too late and hardly any of them were adopted into devices. I can't imagine any situation where Google would have paid Sun or Oracle for a Java ME license.
Don't wait - contact Google's legal team so that they use your insightful legal arguments at trial.
Really? Class API declarations are not code? The API declarations were copied, but not the implementation, and that's still copying code exactly. Google just has a habit of not paying for copyrighted content. Let's look at some examples:
* The content Google search displays when you use a search phrase -- this might be okay because of fair use.
* Google Images
* Google Books
* Google News
So they followed the same routine and copied the API of Java (because copying code implementing API will lead to a guaranteed loss in a lawsuit).
MS has basically gifted the Win32 and .NET APIs to Wine. MS is actually now actively involved in Wine's development. (Believe it or not) Wine is now a targeted and supported runtime environment for ASP.NET5, meaning that if something in ASP.NET5 fails to work on Wine, MS will either work around it in ASP.NET5 or help contribute a patch to Wine (if it's a bug in Wine). Samba's legal situation has been more contentious in the past, with MS basically insisting that it was impossible to reverse-engineer it without breaking license agreements. Ultimately, 8 years ago, Samba, MS and the courts hand-waved together an arrangement that allowed a 3rd-party organization (PFIF) to legally provide the technical specifications to the Samba group.
I see these as being two pretty different things, though. Wine is an implementation of Win32 (and .NET), which is an API specifically provided to the general public as a development API right from the very beginning. Samba is an implementation of a bunch of networking protocols that were originally only intended to be implemented by MS itself, or partners that were very deep in bed with them.
Personally, I believe that either of them should be allowed to be reverse engineered, but they're still somewhat different.
It's not very different: APIs are interface to library systems layered below the app whereas CPU instructions are interface from app to CPU below the app.
AMD has a license to use the interface (CPU instruction API) whereas Google does not for Java. The fair use argument is totally bullshit, because under that excuse some company could build an x86 CPU without paying Intel for the x86 instruction set.
Sorry, momentarily confused Wine and Mono. Wine has never been legally challenged by Microsoft and the development of it has been done clean-room, leaving MS with no legal recourse unless they can demonstrate otherwise. Personally, I don't think they care at all about the existence of wine at this point.
Funny how Sun gave their blessing and provided assistance to Google in developing Android then.
They did copy and paste 37 lines of code, the rangecheck function. The court ruled it diminimus and therefore non-infringing. So, Oracle's lawyers took another tact.
They claimed that this copying gave Google a big advantage and allowed them to get to market sooner. Alsup responded to this argument with ""I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?"
Fight Spammers!
But cleanroom implementations are meaningless if copyright can be asserted over the API. Clean room implementations only work because it has been generally understood that an API itself is essentially a directory listing, like a phone book, that in and of itself does not constitute some sort of creative work. Before the Oracle case, it was assumed that it was the code itself that constituted the intellectual property. But that is now apparently no longer true, and thus the Win32 API has gained the same level of protection as the source code.
If this stands, and is not corrected either by a lower court or by Congress, no one will every try a clean room implementation of any non-free library again, because there's a real likelihood that you would find yourself sued into oblivion for breach of copyright.
Wine may be safe because MS is being constrained by future potential anti-competitive suits, and of course Samba is protected because of a deal cut with the EU. But from this day foreward, clean room implementation of proprietary APIs, and I assume any other software spec (document format, communications protocol, etc.) will have absolutely no protection under the law.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Time to move Android to C#....
No, but it suddenly boosts Novell's value by billions and billions of dollars, because whoever owns those copyrights owns the entire computing industry.
Not bad, one single court ruling has destroyed everything we have created in the last 50 years.
Yay, so now Microsoft can claim SSO copyright on Google.
I thought Java had been open sourced by Sun prior to Oracle's acquisition...
Are we gonna need a new Java?
Why can't we fork it like MariaDB?
you're an idiot
What kind of retard claims interfaces aren't code?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
How do you figure? You say there have been
dozens of lawsuits. Please name a few. Because I can't think of any. I can think of arguments over look and feel and those were thrown out. I also know the DMCA specifically allows interoperability.
NVidia's may be in gray territory morally, but legally they are completely safe (at least they were before this rubbish). Their closed-source binary blob in no way links or even refers to kernel APIs. Instead the shim layer (which is GPL and distributed as source only) compiles against the kernel and then links to the blob. This is completely legal because the actual tainting is done by the end user, not NVidia. So no, their binary drivers are not "begging for a lawsuit."
The owner of the API certainly doesn't get to determine fair use. For that matter a copyright holder doesn't have the right to define this in general. Nor do third parties. They can claim fair use, but ultimately it's decided in court, which is what Google will rightly be arguing for.
I'm no Google fan, but your claims certainly don't stand up to recent history, and they aren't reflected in the law as written and interpreted up until now.
The POSIX APIs were agreed to by *all* of the *nix vendors and published as a standard, which includes a lot of the low-level interfaces used by Linux. They are not "owned" by Novell. Novell merely sold an *implementation* of the APIs.
A completely different kettle of fish than Oracle vs. Google.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Write it in a Babbage Analytical Engine simulator: the copyright has expired by now, and it's Turing Complete.
Table-ized A.I.
"Flamebait" my ass. You punk ass little kids are so full of shit and know so little about licensing issues that it's absolutely laughable. You rant on about how Novell "owns" the POSIX APIs without knowing SHIT about how the POSIX APIs were developed in the midst of the *nix vendor wars and published as a STANDARD that all the vendors AGREED to implement.
You spew FUD and bullshit about how "interfaces aren't code", have no respect for the work that goes into a clean and well defined interface specification, and generally are so damned wet behind the ears that I think the whole INDUSTRY pissed on your collective heads.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Because moving from one proprietary language/library ecosystem to another proprietary language/library ecosystem is somehow an improvement.
Fuck them both. We have truly open ecosystems like C++, and I would encourage any sensible developer going forward to move away from the likes of Java and the .NET ecosystems, now that the Supreme Court has essentially turned them into perpetual litigation machines.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Google got a lot of their libs from Apache, and Apache had lots of contributions from other commercial entities (IBM, Intel, BEA, etc.). They built on top of an existing Apache licensed codebase for their Apache licensed virtual machine runtime which is the explicit benefit of using free software. Oracle is trolling the Java community because either Larry needs a new yacht, or they're just compulsive douchebags.
Google illegally copied Oracle's shit. Deal with it.
You can't copyright an interface, a bitmap font, or other utilitarian items. It ought to be an open and shut case, but courts are having trouble wrapping their head around it.
An idiot.
Adhering to a spec is not copying the spec.
Only actually COPYING the text that defines the spec is copying the spec.
That is to say, only an idiot claims otherwise.
Again, how is adhering to a specification in any way copying anything? It is a specification: a list of rules to follow.
Now copying the list is copying the spec. But following the rules is not copying the spec.
This lawsuite would have had no leg to stand on if Google took code from OpenJDK and used it, but they didn't.
As I mentioned in response to another comment using the GPLv2 would not have been enough. The GPLv2 only covers copyright, Oracle still owns the trademark and patents related to Java and the JVM.
Adopting OpenJDK code directly would have solved the copy right problem. However it would have made Google a target for a patent case. The internals of the Android VM differ quite a bit from the stack based JVM spec. and by that alone should avoid most of the patent issues. Now if Oracle would have published the OpenJDK using the GPLv3 that would have been a different case, however it is more likely that hell will freeze over before that happens.
The Java trademark which Google used extensively is also something they have no chance to win a court case against Oracle. Oracle owns the trademark and has a specific set of requirements for an implementation to use it. Android fails to meet these requirements, first it does not implement the full JRE and second Oracle and before that Sun require explicit licensing for phones and other small scale devices.
PC clone BIOS would be a better example of why Oracle is wrong.
They could argue 'fair use', and I don't doubt they are cheeky enough to do so. But we all know it would make the mockery of the term 'fair use' and copyright.
Even mere usage could be risky - If I code an application that utilizes most/all of a copyrighted API's objects and methods, then my program may include a reflection or copy of the API I'm using.
Making an API freely available to use by application programmers is an invitation to copy it in a sense. That's part of how its used. Its not much of a leap to say that implies that APIs are a special class of code covered entirely by fair-use if authors do not restrict who can code for them.
In any case... Does not every BIOS depend on APIs? How did we even get the PC compatible revolution in the first place?!
fopen() -> fjopen() but fclose()->jfclose()?
Rasmus, is that you?
You are both ignorant and a retarded moron.
Java was never released without licensing. Java code was never not copyrighted.
Java's license has always allow use as a programming language.
What Google did however, is create a Java clone that is close but not quite the same as Java. It is not dissimilar to what MS did with JScript.
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).
---
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?
Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!
* AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!
APK
P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk
Actually, this is the first case *ever* where functional structure was deemed copyrightable. You speak as if this were a foregone conclusion, but it actually goes *against* prior precedent.
Now we get to revisit whether the instruction set of a microprocessor is copyrightable.
yes, and fopen EXPRESSES just such an INCREDIBLE IDEA... I'd NEVER EVER have though of that!
Remember that open source licenses (as well as creative commons) are actually made possible by copyright laws. If there were no copyright laws, the GPL, for instance, would be completely unenforceable because anyone would be able to do whatever they wanted to do with their copy.
What this decision affects is the new idea that APIs are copyrightable, which could have many yet unknown effects throughout the software industry, open and closed source.
And yet something written against the Java API can fairly trivially be made to work against the Google API -- well, in theory.
In theory my ass. I've personally used libraries intended to work with big fat Java in android, viceversa, and even built Jars with Oracle's java compiler and put them inside android apks.
Interoperability is there and was indeed the intended purpose.
The only thing they did to avoid licensing is build their own VM.
It would have been better if Google could have established the general principle that APIs are not copyrightable. They shouldn't be, and establishing that would be good for the whole software industry.
The up-side, is that knowing that APIs are copyrightable (and yes, I agree it's stupid), any future language is pretty much required to give away that API (either straight-up open-source, or a sufficiently free license) to get any sort of developer input.
Call me a pedant, but
> copied shit exactly
Android Inc didn't copy/paste shit; that would be exactly. They built their own VM that runs the same bytecode compile-able from the same source that's freely available all over this mess of the internet. See OpenJDK.
Actually, Dalvik ByteCode is NOT the same bytecode as Java. Android developers use the freely available Java JDK to create .class files. Android's "dx" utility changes the .class files into .dex files (50% smaller and different VM; no Sun/Oracle code). Dalvik uses the .DEX files. ART is an even more different beast. And Google didn't use any of the standard Java libraries. They link with the Apache versions of the standard Java classes which contain Zero Sun/Oracle code. So, why is is Oracle after Google and not Apache? Well ... who has more money. Oracle can't innovate, so they sue.
Oracle bought Sun for one reason. They think suing Google will be the next cash cow. If they win this lawsuit, they will turn around and claim that Google's advertising dollars are the results of Android sales, based on their technology and they will want a cut of Google's entire business. They want to profit from every last Android phone sold and every ad passing through Google's servers. I'm no fan of Go, but Google needs to get SOME alternative going and FAST, with a better IDE than Android Studio. AS is a rock compared to what you get on Apple's platform with Swift, and I don't mean rock-solid!
It was my understanding that Java had been open sourced and that made what Android did allowable, and long as the open source agreement lived on is Androids code
The open source java, OpenJDK, is licensed basically under the GPLv2 (with the runtime classpath exception). If Google took that code and used it, they would have to put their code under the GPL. They didn't. They took the code (actually, just the API definitions) and put it under a different license. It's like taking code licensed under BSD and putting it under the GPL - unless you are the owner of the code it's a license violation and you can no longer use the code.
This lawsuite would have had no leg to stand on if Google took code from OpenJDK and used it, but they didn't. As far as I can tell, OpenJDK didn't enter into the picture at all.
Now, I still think copyrights applying to API is a terrible decision, but I just wanted to clarify the situation about OpenJDK vs Android "Open Source".
Ever program for Android? You have to download the JDK from Sun/Oracle. They didn't write their own JDK, they use the SUN one. The JDK isn't the issue. The Java RunTime is what you might be thinking of. Look, Java is in 3 parts.
[ Java VM ] .--- [ Java RunTime Library ] --- [ Java SDK ]
The Java SDK generates .class files, Java bytecode. These must be linked with other libraries, at the minimum the standard set of Java classes known as the Java runtime library. The developer of the code chooses what SDK they use. Android development tools translate the .class code into .dex code, which runs on Android phones. The SDK isn't distributed by Google, nor is it on the phones.
Java RunTime on your desktop PC is likely from Sun/Oracle (if you run any Java programs). On Android phones, they use the Apache implementation (rather a subset of Apache Harmony - check Wikipedia if you like for the history of this project), which avoids all Sun/Oracle code. This is why you can view the source to these classes in your Android development system (at least in AS you can).
The Android run-time is Dalvik or ART. Totally Google in-house development.
t's like taking code licensed under BSD and putting it under the GPL
Is it? Or is it like reimplementing code licensed under BSD, and putting it under the GPL? Put another way: Is the API "code?"
Example:
ORACLE java.util.LinkedList /* .... /**
* Copyright (c) 1997, 2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
* ORACLE PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
* Returns the first element in this list.
*
* @return the first element in this list
* @throws NoSuchElementException if this list is empty
*/
public E getFirst() {
final Node f = first;
if (f == null)
throw new NoSuchElementException();
return f.item;
}
-----------8<-------------
ANDROID API 21 /* ... /**
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
* contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
* this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
* Returns the first element in this {@code LinkedList}.
*
* @return the first element.
* @throws NoSuchElementException
* if this {@code LinkedList} is empty.
*/
public E getFirst() {
return getFirstImpl();
}
private E getFirstImpl() {
Link first = voidLink.next;
if (first != voidLink) {
return first.data;
}
throw new NoSuchElementException();
}
------------------8<------------------
As you can see, they don't share code at all. And that was just picking a function at random. They aren't in the same order in the file. They share the same API only so that existing Java developers don't have to implement the crap themselves. Yes, the original code was copyrighted, and I guess the courts have said that the copyright protects the API as well as the source. This is a first. And if Google doesn't win fair-use, this could be very far reaching in-deed. You can't make a compatible ANYTHING or interoperate with anything because the original definitions were copyrighted.
They already are. Here is some legal stuff stating Intel licensing copyright of x86 instructions to AMD:
3.4 Intel Copyright License to AMD. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), Intel grants to AMD, for use in or with an AMD Licensed Product, licenses under Intelâ(TM)s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by Intel, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to AMD is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed...
It is therefore logical that Google should also obtain a license to use Oracle's Java API.
But the license between AMD and Intel second guesses whether an instruction set can be protected by copyright; it just avoids a situation where there would be a lawsuit whether copyright applies or not. MIPS went after Lextra for patent infringement and not copyright infringement.
I thought there was a court decision or something which said instruction sets are not copyrightable but was unable to find it.
Maybe the law back when Lexra was around was that instruction sets were not copyrightable. It is this hole in the law that allowed Google to reimplement the Java Standard Library without paying any licensing fees. But since SCOTUS has already ruled APIs are copyrightable, it should stand that instruction sets should also be copyrightable since APIs and instruction sets are very similar, conceptually.
I did find something about Lexra on google:
Nobody can patent, copyright, or otherwise own a language or an instruction set. Lexra had the right, legally and ethically, to design an IP core with the MIPS instruction set.
http://probell.com/Lexra/lexra...
I disagree with the Lexra employee since a lot of effort and creativity goes into designing an instruction set. Both x86 and MIPS allow programs to execute common operations on their CPUs. However, there are a lot of design decisions that go into designing the nitty gritty portions of the operations.
You were right that Lexra did something similar to what Google just did. They created a MIPS clone but were sued for patent infringement:
Though you can not patent an instruction set, you can patent designs and methods that are necessary to implement a particular unusual instruction that is part of the instruction set. That prevents competitors from creating a fully compatible clone of your processor without infringing your patent. There are four instructions in the MIPS-I instruction set that are protected by one US patent, 4,814,976. These instructions, lwl, lwr, swl, and swr are known as the unaligned load and store instructions.
In the US at least, "sweat of the brow" does not by itself allow copyright protection; it is irrelevant how much work is done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The NEC versus Intel case is illustrative though. There microcode was ruled to be copyrightable but reverse engineering and clean room implementation is protected.
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ar...
According to wikipedia, sweat of the brow implies:
Substantial creativity or "originality" is not required.
Designing APIs or instruction sets requires a ton of creativity and originality, since billions of lines of code are going to be using it and since changing them in the future is costly and difficult. The originality comes from improved API design that reduces coding time/debug time as is the case in Java API vs C API. Sweat of the brow type of work means something trivial like creating a database of people's names and phone numbers or printing phone books.
That being said, there is a lot of tedious, sweat of the brow concepts involved in designing APIs. For example, reading a text file still needs something like fileopen(), fileclose(), fileread() that is present in all programming languages in some form. But this API should still be copyrightable since copyright protects creative expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.
The TL;DR version: the API ideas/concepts are similar across many programming languages but the way they are expressed differently means they deserve copyright protection.
IP protection is poor and archaic because it was created in the 1700s where you only had to deal with protecting books and mechanical inventions. API/instruction set are a type of IP that seem like a blend of design patents and copyright. IP law should be extended to protect all types of intellectual property using different tools, not just patents and copyright.
I didn't read the NEC vs Intel case too much but it seems like copyright infringement because copying the body/implementation of a function API is similar to copying the microcode (or subassemly language) of a CPU.
I only brought up the status of "sweat of the brow" in the US because you said:
The effort Lexra (or anybody else) went to in creating a work is irrelevant. Creativity and originality matter but not effort. This comes up all the time with digitized works. The effort in digitizing video or photos or text is not enough to allow copyrighting what is produced. Services like Lexus instead copyright the formatting or table of contents that they produce which are not in the original works.
The NEC case involved copyright of the microcode which NEC independently recreated through a clean room process. Microcode like program code is copyrightable but if Intel had been able to copyright the instruction set, they would have included that in the lawsuit.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2014/11/12/net-core-is-open-source.aspx
Also
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns/