Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by martyb on Monday April 05 2021, @06:48PM   Printer-friendly

We had two Soylentils write in with this breaking news. See other reports at Ars Technica, BBC, and c|net.

Supreme Court rules in Google's favor in copyright dispute with Oracle

Supreme Court rules in Google's favor in copyright dispute with Oracle over Android software:

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Google against Oracle in a long-running copyright dispute over the software used in Android, the mobile operating system.

The court's decision was 6-2. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was not yet confirmed by the Senate when the case was argued in October, did not participate in the case.

The case concerned about 12,000 lines of code that Google used to build Android that were copied from the Java application programming interface developed by Sun Microsystems, which Oracle acquired in 2010. It was seen as a landmark dispute over what types of computer code are protected under American copyright law.

Oracle had claimed at points to be owed as much as $9 billion, while Google claimed that its use of the code was covered under the doctrine of fair use and therefore not subject to copyright liability. Android is the most popular mobile operating system in the world.

See also:
Supreme Court hands Google a victory in a multibillion-dollar case against Oracle

In addition to resolving a multibillion-dollar dispute between the tech titans, the ruling helps affirm a longstanding practice in software development. But the Court declined to weigh in on the broader question of whether APIs are copyrightable.

Justices wary of upending tech industry in Google v. Oracle Supreme Court fight

Several of the other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, suggested they were sympathetic to Oracle's copyright claims.

Still, they appeared reluctant to rule in Oracle's favor because of arguments made by leading computer scientists and Microsoft, in friend-of-the-court briefs, that doing so could upend the industry.

GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

Held: Google's copying of the Java SE API, which included only those lines of code that were needed to allow programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, was a fair use of that material as a matter of law. Pp. 11–36.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05 2021, @07:38PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05 2021, @07:38PM (#1133584)

    Still, they appeared reluctant to rule in Oracle's favor because of arguments made by leading computer scientists and Microsoft, in friend-of-the-court briefs, that doing so could upend the industry.

    So when does the impact to business determine the validity or merits of the case?

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 05 2021, @07:56PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 05 2021, @07:56PM (#1133597) Journal

    So when does the impact to business determine the validity or merits of the case?

    I can't directly answer. But the court's thinking and statements appear to indicate: they didn't want to upend decades of what was ordinary universal practice within the industry -- that APIs can be copied. Since the earliest days, before anyone but nerds cared about computers, it was standard practice that APIs could be copied. It was only the implementation that couldn't. This fits with the idea of standard interfaces and competing implementations.

    Apart from standard industry practice, in the Java world, there are LOTS of standard interface with competing implementations. It's the standard Java over-engineered way of doing things. Everyone needs, let's say, an XML parser. Therefore there must be at least five different implementations, written by different groups -- but they all share a common interface, and are thus interchangeable. You the user must decide which XML parser you want to use. Just as you must choose from multiple garbage collectors, each having different tradeoffs. Or choose from who you get your Java runtime from (Open JDK, Red Hat, Azul, Amazon, IBM, SAP, etc). Or which application server: Apache Tomcat, Jetty, Wildfly, GlassFish, Oracle WebLogic, IBM WebSphere, JBoss Enterprise (eg, Red Hat), Apache TomEE, Apache Geronimo, and others believe it or not. Your build process may build a single file: MyFizzBuzz.war; but each application server will have some kind of control panel or other mechanism to install/remove/start/stop/suspend your "MyFizzBuzz.war" file. Your application will run on application servers from a Ras Pi to a Mainframe -- depending on its resource consumption.

    THE POINT: In the Java world it is very much expected to have standard interfaces with competing implementations. Even fierce competitors work together to standardize interfaces.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 06 2021, @03:06AM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @03:06AM (#1133735)

      THE POINT: In the Java world it is very much expected to have standard interfaces with competing implementations. Even fierce competitors work together to standardize interfaces.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc [youtube.com]

      It's been a few years since I watched this, but from what I remember it was a fairly interesting watch.

      It's a talk given by somebody who worked for Sun before they got acquired by Oracle, who said that a good analogy is to think of Oracle as a lawnmower: You don't ask *why* the lawnmower does or doesn't do certain ethical things; a lawnmower has no feelings.

      There was also some stuff about, even banks will usually pretend to care about civic responsibility and charity and stuff to make themselves look good, but there was some interview with Larry (?) where he basically said "oh, no we totally do it all for the money."

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 06 2021, @03:46AM

      That it would hurt the industry isn't relevant. That it had become de facto common law is. Common law can be part of a legitimate decision, something being a major pain in the ass can't.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05 2021, @09:35PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05 2021, @09:35PM (#1133639)

    How about "when no other crazies even attempted this grab since the previous bunch of jackals was slapped down by lower courts 25+ years ago"?

    If your laws could suddenly reverse their accepted meaning by Larry Ellison's whim, why have laws at all?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05 2021, @10:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05 2021, @10:42PM (#1133660)

      If your laws could suddenly reverse their accepted meaning by Larry Ellison's whim, why have laws at all?

      Baby Larry needs a new boat.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 06 2021, @03:00AM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 06 2021, @03:00AM (#1133734)

      Larry Ellison's whim

      You know what they say,

      One
      Rich
      Asshole
      Called
      Larry
      Ellison

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05 2021, @09:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05 2021, @09:54PM (#1133645)

    So when does the impact to business determine the validity or merits of the case?

    More importantly, when are the folks at Google going to find themselves hoisted on their own petards? It can only be a matter of time.

    Popcorn, boys! I need more popcorn! Lots more popcorn!