You can be sued for anything, so that's not something new.
This current case will be very interesting in terms of clarifying the meaning of "fair use," especially as applied to source code.
The J++ case was more complex, there were patent issues and trademark issues as well. Theoretically (as far as I can tell) MS could have used a fair-use defense to deal with the copyright issues, but they would have still had trademark and patent issues, and in any case they settled instead of letting it go to trial.
Microsoft eventually did lose the follow-up case, which was over patents used in the JVM. Oracle tried to use the patents against Google, but Google counter-sued with their own patents, and eventually it was found that the patents either were not particularly valid or countered each other out.
Your baseline is so bad that "particularly good" relative to that baseline is really not something to boast of.
Yes lol. This sort of code makes me feel sad inside:
INT WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)
HANDLE
As specifications are not covered by copyright law (the law explicitly says so)
The law doesn't say that (at least in the US). Here is what the law says:
“[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.”
In applying it to source code, the courts first divide the code into 'creative' and 'functional' parts. If there is more than one way to do something, it's basically creative. (see the altai case)
Then the court throws away the 'functional' parts, and uses the remaining parts to compare with the infringing program.
Even Google admits that there is some creativity involved in making an API. For example, the creators could put a max() function into java.lang.math, or it could have put it into java.math.integers. There is creativity in naming the libraries. There is even creativity in the decisions of what is included in the library, and what is excluded.
The circuit court made a very readable and well-reasoned decision, I think you would enjoy reading it. Frankly though, if the merest scribble on a piece of paper can be copyrighted, then it makes sense that an API can be copyrighted.
Incidentally, the "clean room" issue doesn't apply in this case because Google didn't do a clean room copy. That shouldn't matter to the ultimate decision, though.
a "clean room implementation" is not a derived work.
Why do you think that? I'm interested in your legal reasoning (or references to legal reasoning).
BTW: when the JVM-specification was published, SUN declared it an open standard and challenged the public to implement their own variations
I think you're referring to this license, which doesn't apply in Google's case because their version of Java is not even close to meeting the requirements of that license.
This is purely about copyright over the Java API itself.
The Java API is copyrighted. That has already been appealed to the Supreme Court, and now the case has been sent back down to a lower court to test Google's fair-use defense.
Didn't they simply use the harmony libraries as a base which were presumably Apache licenced?
That's a good point, I just checked, and Harmony is Apache-licensed, not GPL. The way they got around it was by doing a clean-room implementation for interoperability purposes. This is allowed as fair use (Sony vs Connectix). (Incidentally, Sun explicitly allowed interoperability as long as it's compatible with their Java: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_... )
Google is likely going to try a fair use defense based on interoperability (probably other defenses as well). That isn't likely to work, see this: http://www.natlawreview.com/ar...
The court also discounted Google’s interoperability arguments on the basis that there was no evidence of the existence of any apps written in Java and running on the Android platform. Rather, the court emphasized that Google’s desire was to capitalize on the fact that programmers already trained in Java’s APIs in order to accelerate its development process.
Are you able to explain the rationale behind this policy?
No, I don't understand it and it makes no sense to me (the most likely reason is because the state has no money, and was looking to cut budgets everywhere, and that is how they did it).
I learned this by talking to school board members, so I don't have a web link.
What I'm curious about is if now Apple can be preemptive and force this to go to court and have the order slapped down.
Probably not. When you sue someone, you have a lot of freedom to withdraw a lawsuit. For example, if Apple requested a summary judgement or something, they could just withdraw the case and the court would have no more jurisdiction. It's kind of unfair, but well
In common English one might say that a clean-room re-implementation is derivative, but in the context of copyright law 'derivative work' is fairly specific and this doesn't apply.
It's still a derivative work. Clean-room implementation is an example of a fair-use defense, but Google didn't do a clean-room implementation, and they didn't do it for interoperability. I'm really interested in seeing what their defense is, actually.
They are definitely derivative works. If you re-implement it in the correct way, then you can have a fair use defense, but it's still a derivative work in that case.
The problem is Google originally did that with Sun's blessing..
If by 'blessing' you mean they got a written or verbal contract giving them permission, then no, you're wrong. Some people at Sun might have been happy about it, but without a contract, 'happiness' doesn't matter.
Lawyers charge a lot of money, but for a case like this you'd expect on the order of $100million, not something in the billions; even though its a long case.
The problem wasn't that Google used Java to program (like IBM does), that's fine and free to do. The Java license allows anyone to write code using Java, without any restrictions. The problem also wasn't re-implementing Java (like Apache Harmony): anyone is free to do that under the terms of the GPL.
The problem is that Google re-implemented Java, and tried to release it under different terms than the GPL. Since it is a derivative work, Google needed to follow the terms of the license. Since they tried to release it under BSD (I think that's the license the used), they are now being sued.
The only question remaining is whether their implementation was a fair use or not. My guess is it will be found not to be, but who knows with a jury trial.
Slashdot Mirror
You can be sued for anything, so that's not something new.
This current case will be very interesting in terms of clarifying the meaning of "fair use," especially as applied to source code.
The J++ case was more complex, there were patent issues and trademark issues as well. Theoretically (as far as I can tell) MS could have used a fair-use defense to deal with the copyright issues, but they would have still had trademark and patent issues, and in any case they settled instead of letting it go to trial.
Microsoft eventually did lose the follow-up case, which was over patents used in the JVM. Oracle tried to use the patents against Google, but Google counter-sued with their own patents, and eventually it was found that the patents either were not particularly valid or countered each other out.
Your baseline is so bad that "particularly good" relative to that baseline is really not something to boast of.
Yes lol. This sort of code makes me feel sad inside:
INT WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)
HANDLE
That should not fall under copyright, ever. Otherwise, interoperability is dead.
This is pure ignorance. It's like you don't even know about "fair use."
You need to distinguish between using an API and copying an API.
As specifications are not covered by copyright law (the law explicitly says so)
The law doesn't say that (at least in the US). Here is what the law says:
“[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.”
In applying it to source code, the courts first divide the code into 'creative' and 'functional' parts. If there is more than one way to do something, it's basically creative. (see the altai case)
Then the court throws away the 'functional' parts, and uses the remaining parts to compare with the infringing program.
Even Google admits that there is some creativity involved in making an API. For example, the creators could put a max() function into java.lang.math, or it could have put it into java.math.integers. There is creativity in naming the libraries. There is even creativity in the decisions of what is included in the library, and what is excluded.
The circuit court made a very readable and well-reasoned decision, I think you would enjoy reading it. Frankly though, if the merest scribble on a piece of paper can be copyrighted, then it makes sense that an API can be copyrighted.
Incidentally, the "clean room" issue doesn't apply in this case because Google didn't do a clean room copy. That shouldn't matter to the ultimate decision, though.
Which is obvious bullshit, regardless of what the courts may say on the matter.
The subtlety of your thought and cleverness of your argument here impresses me. Like, who could argue with such depth of reasoning?
a "clean room implementation" is not a derived work.
Why do you think that? I'm interested in your legal reasoning (or references to legal reasoning).
BTW: when the JVM-specification was published, SUN declared it an open standard and challenged the public to implement their own variations
I think you're referring to this license, which doesn't apply in Google's case because their version of Java is not even close to meeting the requirements of that license.
First off, Java is not licensed under GPL.
Look up openJDK.
This is purely about copyright over the Java API itself.
The Java API is copyrighted. That has already been appealed to the Supreme Court, and now the case has been sent back down to a lower court to test Google's fair-use defense.
Didn't they simply use the harmony libraries as a base which were presumably Apache licenced?
That's a good point, I just checked, and Harmony is Apache-licensed, not GPL. The way they got around it was by doing a clean-room implementation for interoperability purposes. This is allowed as fair use (Sony vs Connectix). (Incidentally, Sun explicitly allowed interoperability as long as it's compatible with their Java: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_... )
Google is likely going to try a fair use defense based on interoperability (probably other defenses as well). That isn't likely to work, see this: http://www.natlawreview.com/ar...
The court also discounted Google’s interoperability arguments on the basis that there was no evidence of the existence of any apps written in Java and running on the Android platform. Rather, the court emphasized that Google’s desire was to capitalize on the fact that programmers already trained in Java’s APIs in order to accelerate its development process.
Whether it is or is not, an API should not be copyrightable,
But it is, so for that to change will take an act of legislation.
Are you able to explain the rationale behind this policy?
No, I don't understand it and it makes no sense to me (the most likely reason is because the state has no money, and was looking to cut budgets everywhere, and that is how they did it).
I learned this by talking to school board members, so I don't have a web link.
What I'm curious about is if now Apple can be preemptive and force this to go to court and have the order slapped down.
Probably not. When you sue someone, you have a lot of freedom to withdraw a lawsuit. For example, if Apple requested a summary judgement or something, they could just withdraw the case and the court would have no more jurisdiction. It's kind of unfair, but well
Yes, and they have tons and tons of software offerings.
Good points.
In common English one might say that a clean-room re-implementation is derivative, but in the context of copyright law 'derivative work' is fairly specific and this doesn't apply.
It's still a derivative work. Clean-room implementation is an example of a fair-use defense, but Google didn't do a clean-room implementation, and they didn't do it for interoperability. I'm really interested in seeing what their defense is, actually.
reimplementations are not derivative works.
They are definitely derivative works. If you re-implement it in the correct way, then you can have a fair use defense, but it's still a derivative work in that case.
The problem is Google originally did that with Sun's blessing..
If by 'blessing' you mean they got a written or verbal contract giving them permission, then no, you're wrong. Some people at Sun might have been happy about it, but without a contract, 'happiness' doesn't matter.
Lawyers charge a lot of money, but for a case like this you'd expect on the order of $100million, not something in the billions; even though its a long case.
Oracle has much more than just a database, though. I would be surprised if their database is more than a fraction of their revenue.
Java is available under a GPL + exceptions license. Google should take this GPL code and use it as a base for a new VM.
They have switched to that now. Amazing how quickly they followed your advice. :)
Why on earth did they copy the Java APIs? Most of them are not particularly good anyway.
I think it was already written that way when they bought the Android company.
The problem wasn't that Google used Java to program (like IBM does), that's fine and free to do. The Java license allows anyone to write code using Java, without any restrictions. The problem also wasn't re-implementing Java (like Apache Harmony): anyone is free to do that under the terms of the GPL.
The problem is that Google re-implemented Java, and tried to release it under different terms than the GPL. Since it is a derivative work, Google needed to follow the terms of the license. Since they tried to release it under BSD (I think that's the license the used), they are now being sued.
The only question remaining is whether their implementation was a fair use or not. My guess is it will be found not to be, but who knows with a jury trial.
Half those patents from the 90s are expired now.
That's more than they paid for Sun in total. (Sale price was $7.4 billion).