SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Good bye independent implementation of API's? Oracle wins the appeal on Java API copyright. Page 5:
Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court's copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury's infringement finding as to the 37 Java packages.
From PCWorld:
The federal appeals court referred the case back to the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, where the two sides will have to return to do battle.
Oracle sued Google four years ago, saying its Android operating system infringes on patents and copyrights related to Oracle's Java technology.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
F.S. Fitzgerald to Hemingway:
"Ernest, the rich are different from us."
Hemingway:
"Yes. They have more money."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday May 10 2014, @02:16PM
This is ridiculous. Just think about it ... what if you write a small API that works for your (or your company's) custom applications. That API happens to have a function name that is similar to someone else's. If it's a relatively simple or limited function it could also use similar variable names and/or a data structures. And that's all it takes to violate someone else's copyright?
This doesn't have to be a big corporation like Oracle. The people who have copyrighted their API could be a small little software trolling company that then hires some cheap labor to download and analyze code from other companies. WTF? This could create a brand new category of copyright trolls who rush to copyright rather generic API calls and then lie in wait for any somewhat successful startup.
Is the USCO going to publish a directory of copyrighted function names and their definitions so everyone else can avoid using the same names, structures, etc? Of course not.
Let's hope this plays out all the way to SCOTUS. Then maybe we can get some rulings on this issue as well as software patents.
(Score: 1) by michealpwalls on Saturday May 10 2014, @03:57PM
You might want to actually do some research instead of parroting what the big "news" sites are spoon-feeding you. Here's a starting point for you: Of the 166 packages available in the 2008 specification, the following 37 packages were used by Google (Without license to do so) to form the foundation of their Android platform's software ecosystem:
.
So.. What was that about "write a small API", "have a function name that is similar" and etc. again? Maybe before joining into the popular group-think you might want to actually do a shred of research for yourself.
For those who are not Java developers here (As it's pretty obvious I seem to be the only one?) it's worth noting that those are gigantic packages encompassing massive portions of Java. Google java.beans
(Score: 4, Informative) by moondrake on Saturday May 10 2014, @05:01PM
And again you are spreading misinformation!
It is the header files they copied NOT the implementation. And curses on whoever modded this up!
(Score: 2) by michealpwalls on Saturday May 10 2014, @05:07PM
I was quoting directly the footnotes found on Pages 7 and 8 from the court document [scribd.com].
Where did your information come from? :)
(Score: 4, Informative) by moondrake on Saturday May 10 2014, @05:25PM
There was nothing wrong with your quotes (apart from making it seem more simple than it is). But your interpretation that they copied binary packages is wrong. My quotes obviously came from the same document. Page 8 has the definition of the package. Page 11 explains that what google copied was only the declaring code, but wrote their own implementation. But all this refers to the previous fact-finding by the district court. No newer facts were established here, it is just that the appeals court thinks that the law allows for an API to be copyrightable
If it would be as clear cut as you seem to think, why on earth would the district court have decided in favor of Google? There are very good arguments to allow header copying, but the courts apparently struggle a bit with how this should be interpreted under the law....
(Score: 2) by michealpwalls on Sunday May 11 2014, @12:39PM
I'm going to try and build-up to my opinion (That Google has no license to use Java whatsoever).
"Java" is a meta product, if you will. "Java" encompasses the Language, the API that exposes the plethora of functionality, the compiler that compiles the Java into Byte Code, the Virtual Machine that executes Byte Code and the Byte Code itself, arguably a second language that is also owned by Oracle. This --all of this-- is known as the product "Java", one of Oracle's main products (I'm know I'm being overly verbose, but it's part of my point here...)
Java is a proprietary, copyrighted product.
It's no surprise this Oracle vs Google court case has turned into some kind of confusing circus. I think we can agree on that, hehe. These are titans clashing over something extremely important to both of them and so of course there's going to be serious "battles" over seemingly insignificant things ("These are just headers", "APIs are Fair Use", etc.) all of which attempt to side-step the real issue here, at least in my opinion.
In my opinion, the real issue is simple, if you leave the lawyers out of it for just a minute. If Java is a unified product as it is, you cannot just selectively pick and choose which parts of it you want and which you don't care about. You have a set of licenses to choose from and that's it (Unless you want to negotiate directly with Sun/Oracle, which Google tried to do but did not finish). It is not your product, you are not in control.
Even if Google wrote --from scratch-- the entire API and declaring headers, a Compiler, the Virtual Machine, their own Byte Code and threw in their own Debugger to top-off the cake... They are still using Oracle's Java language. That language is part of the overall product and so they are still violating the license. In my opinion they're doing a heck of a lot more wrong than just the language, but I suppose I lost that debate hehe.
What I don't get, is why Google has to be such a dork about this? This is all so that Google does not have to commit their changes upstream to Java. They want their Davlik Virtual Machine private and they want their "Java" to be slightly incompatible with other reference Javas. This is the anti-thesis of "Fair Use", guys!
Nobody wins here but Google, anyways. My Java programs don't run on Android and Android's "Java" programs don't run on my standard Java virtual machine. Is this compatibility? Is this fair use? This is the world you guys are defending and that's why I am so deeply opposed to this. This kind of junk will kill Java. No more "Write Once, Run Everywhere".
(Score: 1) by gishzida on Sunday May 11 2014, @08:15PM
Sorry but I disagree with your ideas concerning Oracle and its ideas of "interoperability", "open source", "copyright", and "API". It seems that Oracle's ideas are not too far from SCOGroup's ideas concerning APIs... which is one of the things that SCO sued Novell for... Copying headers...
But interoperability is totally dependent on "freely available" APIs...
The whole point of the Oracle law suit has nothing to do with "stolen code" or "violated copyright" but everything to do with Oracles' greed and desire for "market" control. Oracle missed the boat on creating a phone OS... much like Microsoft didn't see much use for the Internet... and their only recourse for innovation is to sue?
Oracle [as successor to Sun Microsystems] suffers the same delusion that Sun did... that there is a justification for their having the final words into regards to compatibility... great... fine... and well... then Java is dead. It is a closed source language, API, and software ecosystem. It is now provably not open nor is it standards based.
Instead Oracle / Sun has persistently claimed it to be open... it even went so far as to "open source the language"... but failed to actually open source the "standards software suite".... which means that they have been massively misleading both developers and consumers because not one "open source" piece of java software can be proved to be actually Java compatible without that suite.... which means what ever it its you're writing it isn't Java -- and were you actually able to make any *real* money from your Java code you can now absolutely be assured that Larry's lawyers will be knocking on your door to get a piece of the action.
As an end-user / consumer of this "language" what have I enjoyed? Endless warnings for Java's gigantic security holes and Oracle's continuing attempts to put spam-ware / mal-ware on my computer system.
Oracle has just defined Java as a non-standards based language and has proved them selves once again to be a non-innovative anti-consumer corporation. So piss on your Java and its ecosystem.... It's time to remove Java from my computer systems and tell every one of it's evangelists to go crying to Larry... because Java is no longer a language but an attack vector for intellectual property lawsuits and corporate sponsored malware...
Want to write once run every where? use python, TCL/Tk, Lua, Perl.... none of which attempt to put spam-ware on end user machines... and have just as many features as Java does... or for that matter, fork davlik and get a new ecosystem going... but Java? I won't use it anymore and I will recommend it not be used by other consumers that look to me for technical assistance.
Just say no to lawsuit innovation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @08:30PM
Apart from dalvik, mobile Java is J2ME not J2SE. Also known as a steaming pile of shit in which there has never ever been "Write Once, Debug Everywhere" let alone actually being able to run it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday May 10 2014, @11:32PM
And there's your problem right there.
You assume the judges are savvy enough to make sure court documents reveal the true state of affairs.
Remember that Other judges reviewed this for much longer and agreed that all that was copied are the header files you need to call these apis. Everybody needs these API interface (calling parameters) files to use Java.
Google took those interface specifications and wrote modules to do the same thing, cloning functionality, but not actual code.
This gets appealed, and this does not stand, because allowing it to stand means that anyone writing a program that calls another would have to take out a license. Even a command line string of arguments to invoke a program would require you license the original program.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by nsa on Sunday May 11 2014, @01:10AM
We at the NSA are sure glad we can get away with letting judges remain stupid. If we had to educate them as to the basics of things such as a nonstandard text foreground and background color not being evidence of criminal activity, our whole gig would be up in smoke.
(seriously I tried to google to get the link but couldn't find it, but hopefully the audience here remembers the case well enough).
(asside, no I am not employed by the NSA, but this statement is 100% true, the NSA never lies.)
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday May 11 2014, @03:16AM
You wanna enjoy some moist delicious irony? All those defending Google? get ready to shit the bricks because THEY DID THE SAME AS MS JAVA WHICH YOU ALL DERIDED! so either you are FOR the so called "EEE" strategy or against, which is it? Its the same EEE, copy the guts of the competition, extend it just enough so you get the benefits of the devs knowing the previous software but making it different enough its not easy to port back, and as for extinguish...how many phones are using java mobile now over Android?
it just goes to show you its ALL flag waving bullshit, if company A does A they are an evil bastard but if company B does A they are in the right and just...its all flag waving popularity contest bullshit at the end of the day because either something is wrong or it is right, you can go around changing the rules just because you like or dislike a company.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3) by hash14 on Saturday May 10 2014, @05:08PM
Now it would be great if Brian Kernighan sues Oracle in return for their wanton use of type names like int, double and char.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @03:00AM
Don't you mean Dennis Ritchie? Also he didn't invent those names.