
Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit - alpb
https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/case-for-open-innovation/
======
DannyB2
Just to point something out.

IBM sponsored and was the primary contributor of resources to an independently
developed Java work-alike called Apache Harmony. (about JDK 1.5 level, IIRC)
Apache Harmony was, naturally, under the Apache license.

Google wanted something like Java for Android, so Google used Apache Harmony.

Sun was okay with Google having something like Java in Android and had said
so. (perhaps reluctantly)

Oracle sees Sun for sale, and envisions a big "sue google" sign on Sun's back.
Oracle buys Sun, to get Java and sue Google. Very soon after acquisition this
becomes apparent. James Gosling leaves Oracle for reasons that were not quite
clear at the time, but soon become clear.

Oracle claimed Google had used Java code. But Android had Apache Harmony.

So Oracle changes its argument to . . . But the APIs!!!

(Groklaw had documented all this back in the day.)

~~~
jcranmer
Google explicitly calls out in its brief the fact that Sun, as the original
author of the code, very explicitly did not consider Google to be infringing.

Although I do wish Google tried harder to press the point that, based on
Oracle's argument that copying the API infringes copyright, Oracle itself is
in violation of others' copyright. Ars Technica has an example of that
(Amazon's AWS), and the brief does give a vague allusion to this fact, based
on what I presume is the trial records:

> Notably, Java SE itself “reimplements” interfaces from earlier programming
> languages. JA154-157; see also JA211.

~~~
pjmlp
According to Gosling they did, just did had they money to do anything against
it, and decided to make juice out of lemons.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=57m42s)

Also Google could have bought Sun and own Java, apparently they did not, as
they thought they could get away with it.

~~~
danShumway
This is inaccurate. According to Gosling in the video you link, Sun believed
the clean room implementation probably wasn't clean. That has nothing to do
with whether or not Sun believed that usage of _the API_ was infringing.

------
CaliforniaKarl
Who here remembers Groklaw? PJ was covering Oracle vs. Google with the same
level of detail that she used on SCO vs. IBM. Coverage ran up into the first
appeal, when she stopped updating the site.

• The list of all Oracle vs. Google filings (up to the site's closing), with
links to articles that mention them. Not all filings had corresponding
articles:
[http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=OracleGoog...](http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=OracleGoogle)

• The list of all articles related to Oracle vs. Google, in reverse-order
(newest at the top):
[http://groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=archives&year=...](http://groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=archives&year=-1&use_s_page=OracleGoogle)

PJ, wherever you are, I hope you're doing well!

(Edited: Removed characters that messed up formatting)

~~~
ethbro
Stopped updating it for a reason --
[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175)

~~~
pisky
Has that site been hacked? When I use Chrome's simplified view there is a
paragraph injected talking about and linking to live porn.

~~~
ShorsHammer
> [http://](http://)

no donkey in this race but how sure this is not you and your circumstances
rather than the site itself? Living in certain countries my ISP used to inject
all sort of nonsense into every unencrypted site they could.

Anyone not using tls these days is intentionally exposing their readers to
harm, which you seem to be experiencing.

Personally I won't view such sites on principle and block them with https-
everywhere, though guessing many others do allow it, due to being the default
setting worldwide.

~~~
anderskaseorg
It’s not just them—the described paragraph is in the Google cache (search for
xxx).

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RhVEwm...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RhVEwmGBrloJ:www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story%3D20130818120421175&hl=en&gl=us&strip=0&vwsrc=1)

~~~
mattchamb
view the page source and there is a "position: absolute; left: -5294px; top:
0;" to hide the paragraph

~~~
_JamesA_
As someone who doesn't dive deep into CSS positioning what is the significance
of -5294?

Is there a reason it's not a round number?

------
TaylorAlexander
This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out
t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted”. Call me cynical but I feel like
google is narrowly interested in open innovation when they are at risk for
billions in fines, and definitely also supports openness in other ways, but
still supports a lot of proprietary and closed source work. There are lots of
business reasons to be closed source, but don’t talk up a big talk about the
value of openness when you’re really just trying to cover your ass. Lots of
google tech fails on openness.

~~~
gpm
This is coming from a whole lot more than just Google. They are the ones who
will lose money in the immediate lawsuit, but we all stand to suffer if
Oracle's interpretation of the law is held up. Don't take my word for it, take
the word of the entire software community who has weighed in on this to
support google in the form of amicus briefs (which I really do encourage you
to read).

Here is a partial list of other groups who have already filed motions in
support of Google: Microsoft, EFF, Python Software Foundation, Mozilla,
RedHat, (see the docket for a complete list).

In addition their was a very interesting brief submitted by a bunch of famous
computer scientists, instead of an organized company. The names attatched
included Edwin Catmull, Alan Kay, Brian Kernighan, Bjarne Stroustrup, Andrew
Tanenbaum, Ken Thompson, Guido van Rossum, Steve Wozniak. The total list of
people is 78 long and they are all of similar caliber (though I did pick out
the names I had the strongest recognition for), see their brief:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/89487/20190...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/89487/20190225134131839_18-956_Oracle_v__Google_Computer_Scientists_Amicus_Motion_Brief_FILE.pdf))

This case isn't about Google making or loosing some money, Google being open
or not. None of the amici care about that, the supreme court doesn't care
about that. Only Google and Oracle care about that. This case is about the law
that governs us all and what effects it has on us all.

And yes, Microsoft is agreeing with the EFF in a lawsuit...

~~~
AmericanChopper
I very strongly support Google’s side of this case. But them claiming to
champion open innovation is incredibly condescending and frankly bullshit.
They’re pursuing this case exclusively for financial motives (which I don’t
think there’s anything wrong with to be clear). But the fact that there’s some
public good behind it is just a happy coincidence for their marketing
department. They’d just as happily be on Oracle’s side if that made financial
sense to them.

~~~
dontblink
Based on what precedence? Imo this statement is just false.

------
gpm
Docket:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-956.html)

Direct link to brief:
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/127663/20200...](http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/127663/20200106172508533_18-956%20ts.pdf)

Schedule:

Petitioner’s (Google) brief: January 6, 2020

Respondent’s (Oracle) brief: February 12, 2020

Reply (Google) brief: March 13, 2020

Oral Argument: Likely late March, possibly in April, otherwise delayed to
October.

Ruling: If Oral argument is heard late march or in April, sometime this
summer.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Sometime _before_ summer, right? Doesn't the court adjourn at the end of June
or so?

~~~
gpm
The last day on the schedule is June 29th, you can view it here:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2019TermCourtCal...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2019TermCourtCalendar.pdf)

Depends on how you define summer I guess.

------
sarcasmatwork
FYI: [https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-
google](https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google)

~~~
ronilan
_the lawsuit will now be known as Google v. Oracle, since Google asked the
Supreme Court to hear the case. After nine years, we’ll have to get used to
calling the case by this new name_

Interesting.

Poetic.

Google can’t win this fight (if they win) as a defendant, only as an
aggressor.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Google can’t win this fight (if they win) as a defendant

Sure they can (and it's the only way they can), if they win _at_ the Supreme
Court, it will be as a Defendant-Appellant. And if, as is often the case, the
final formalization of the victory comes on remand back to the trial court
from the Supreme Court after the Supreme Court declares the controlling law,
_that_ victory will be as a simple Defendant.

~~~
ronilan
Thanks for the clarification. IANAL.

(It’s been a beautiful saga. I hope they make a movie out of it.)

------
fotcorn
Question: My understanding is that the Supreme Court is here to interpret the
constitution and other laws. When it now decides that Oracle is right and APIs
are copyrightable, can't the other parts of the government introduce a new law
making APIs not copyrightable again?

~~~
gpm
If the supreme court decides for Oracle, congress can absolutely pass a new
law that reduces the scope of copyright to exclude APIs. The constitution
limits what congress can say is copywritable, but doesn't require that they
say anything is.

There's even a good chance that they will in my opinion, given the amount of
lobbying dollars on the side of sanity in this case.

Still, I would rather not rely on congress doing anything sensible in a timely
manner these days, especially when existing copyright law already sides with
Google (IMO). It would also not be retroactive, so everyone under the sun can
sue everyone under the sun over previous violations.

------
jmspring
Oracle is no saint, but Google isn't a saint in this either. Google is one of
the strictest companies I've talked with when it comes to people working on
personal projects, contributing to open source, etc. even when in California
and on your own time/equipment.

------
belorn
There is a lot comments focusing on which side will win, but I would like to
hear peoples thought about how the judges can reach the desired conclusion and
what the potential risk or prospects to areas outside of programming API. As
long there is not explicit paragraph in copyright about programming API I
would think that there will be an effect outside the scope of this lawsuit.

One area of copyrighted works I have seen people also question the legibility
of being copyrightable is standard documents and law texts. They seems to me
as very similar to an program API, if somewhat less strict when implemented.
It would definitive lower the cost of interoperability if such works would be
lifted outside of copyright.

On the risk side however, I am wondering if the Idea–expression distinction
get pushed towards the idea side, then will companies just use that finding as
an argument in favor of patenting API? 20 years is better than the practically
infinity that is copyright, but I am not sure it will make the situation much
better in the general case.

------
bjornsing
If software interfaces can’t be copyrighted, how come CPU ISAs can...? Anybody
know?

~~~
gpm
How come you assume they can be? My understanding is that they have generally
been protected by patent but I'm open to being proven wrong (preferably by
being shown a court case, but being shown big licensing agreements for
_copyright_ would also be interesting).

~~~
bjornsing
I’ve just assumed it so because I’ve read it a few times in various contexts,
but now that I google it more thoroughly it looks very much like you’re right.

Perhaps this confusion stems from the fact that chip companies tend to license
the ISA bundled with documentation and software tools, which are of course
covered by copyright (see e.g. the MIPS Open license).

------
runningmike
Time for Google to support open innovation for real.

Some Key principles for open innovation

Creating value is not an end but a means for making our world better. You
embrace openness when creating value for your customers. You use an OSI
approved license when developing software. You use an Creative Commons License
to share documentation that has value. You embrace openness as basic value for
knowledge sharing and growth. Think of open science, open data, open access,
open research. Knowledge and improvements should be beneficial and reachable
for everyone. Your organization is inclusive.

------
sitkack
Google should bring XMPP back to its chat application(s), Openess doesn't stop
at API workalikes.

~~~
teekert
This is the new definition of open. A documented API, probably with no
guarantees and many requirements. Is the Nest thermostat really open when you
can only write values to it via the cloud? Why not a simple local mqtt
solution? I would not call this "open".

------
lloydde
Last year I went to refresh my memory on the status of the case and all pop
press referred to “11,500 lines of code” copier. I couldn’t find any
clarification of those are all API calls. Anyone know or better yet have a
reference with analysis?

------
ksec
Would we need new software license with regards to Copyright protection once
this case is closed in Orcale's flavour?

------
auggierose
I find the term "useful Arts" interesting in patent law, as it clearly
suggests that there are "unuseful arts"!

------
gigatexal
if Oracle loses does anyone think they'll be more or less open to relicensing
ZFS so it's more GPL / Linux friendly?

~~~
utopian3
Why would ZFS' license be related to the outcome of this court case?

~~~
gigatexal
They could open source it as a part of goodwill to the Linux community

------
pgsbathhouse
Google's arguments were already refuted in the earliest hearings. There's a
reason this is going to the supreme court, the rulings didn't really match up
with accepted evidence and testimony of experts in the court.

Google will lose this. You don't explicitly copy code, take other people's
engineers after exiting licensing talks with the company you took from, and
have it not be about stealing someone else's intellectual efforts.

The courts have already explicitly denied Google's claim they did this for
compatibility or interoperability. The grey area is how much damage Google has
done to Oracle, and it's hard to put an explicit price on that. But given the
popularity of Android and how Google's has massively benefited from the
platform, in no small thanks to the development community around it, and given
the absolutely morbid failure of its other community dev efforts it's not
really hard to see that Android wouldn't be what it is today without Java;
having a familiar platform for developers to code against is priceless (but
not legally).

Google wanted all the benefits of using Java without actually paying for it.

Sun put a lot, and I mean a lot of money into Java. Java had well defined
licensing terms for how to use their code. Oracle bought Java. Oracle has the
rights to license and price their code however they want. Google does not.
Google was in talks with Oracle to license Java but backed out when they
didn't want to pay to use it. Instead Google took engineers from the company
they copied code from, and re-licensed said code.

It's black and white but people's blind hate for Oracle leads them down an
argument or view point the courts have already denied and are now ignoring.

Don't sacrifice your principles for some cheap hit against Oracle. If Google
can just throw their man power around to ignore your license, your open source
license will not matter. You will not get credit for the work you do. Google
and others can just feel like they don't want to abide by your license, take
your code, and re-license it however they want. It's already hard to enforce
any type of open source licence but if Google comes out on top it really won't
matter moving forward. That is what is at stake here.

"What we’ve actually been asked to do (by Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin]) is
to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and
Chrome. We’ve been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude
that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need." \-
Email from Tim Lindholm, a Google Engineer

From the most recent hearing:

"Ultimately, we find that, even assuming the jury was unpersuaded that Google
acted in bad faith, the highly commercial and non-transformative nature of the
use strongly support the conclusion that the first factor weighs against a
finding of fair use." \-
[https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180327178](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180327178)

~~~
danShumway
This is objectively, very definitively false.

> You don't explicitly copy code

Google didn't copy code. Even if you believe that APIs are copyrightable,
Google's clean-room implementation hasn't been part of the case for years.
It's just about the API now.

If you want to make an argument that APIs are copyrightable, fine, make that
argument. Make the argument that Google is infringing on Oracles API. But if
you're trying to accuse Google of copying code, you're wrong. You're
conflating two ideas that are not related.

> It's black and white but people's blind hate for Oracle leads them down an
> argument or view point the courts have already denied and are now ignoring.

If this was actually as black and white as you say, the Supreme court wouldn't
have agreed to hear it, they would have just allowed the lower court decision
to stand. Unless you believe that Ruth Bader Ginsburg blindly hates Oracle for
some reason?

~~~
pgsbathhouse
>Google didn't copy code.

Yes they did.

~~~
danShumway
No, they didn't. If you're referring to the infamous 9 lines of code:

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

that was removed in Android 4.0 and is no longer being litigated as part of
the case. Google is not being sued for stealing code -- Oracle agreed way back
in 2012 not to pursue statuary damages for those lines.

The appeal courts reversal of Alsups decision in 2014 was on the basis of
copying the API. They wrote "that the overall structure of Oracle's API
packages is creative, original, and resembles a taxonomy"[0].

You're conflating two separate issues, copying implementation code vs copying
an API -- copying the implementation was resolved in 2012. Copying the API is
still being litigated. If you have a docket or ruling or source that says
otherwise, then of course feel free to list it.

Or if you want to make the argument that declarative headers for an API are
_technically_ code, then... OK, whatever, fine. But it's still wildly
deceptive to conflate declarative code and implementation code without
mentioning that the law has treated them separately for decades. You're making
it sound to a normal reader like Google wholesale lifted implementation logic
from Java, which is just not what happened.

[0]:
[https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140509135](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140509135)

~~~
pgsbathhouse
>copying implementation code vs copying an API

You said code. Not implementation code.

------
dehrmann
Just because Oracle:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2040s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2040s)

I await the day the lawnmower defense becomes the new Chewbacca defense.

------
jborichevskiy
Google could lead by example here - perhaps by letting people download a
reliable, usable copy of the data they're making 70 billion dollars a year
from. But they won't even do that.

[https://beepb00p.xyz/takeout-data-gone.html](https://beepb00p.xyz/takeout-
data-gone.html)

~~~
zozbot234
That blogpost is complaining that Google isn't keeping around as much data as
OP would like. I mean, seriously? Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

~~~
jborichevskiy
Let's be real; it's not like your data is also purged from their predictive
models when it's no longer available in Takeout. They'll still be using it for
profit. The least they can do is let you download a copy of it.

~~~
svat
Yes your data is purged when you delete it from your activity
([https://myactivity.google.com/](https://myactivity.google.com/)) (not
instantly because there are many systems involved, but within a strict
deadline). This is taken seriously, and there are teams at Google making sure
this happens. (Not sure how much is public, but some details in this thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19809259](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19809259))
(Note that anonymized data, such as aggregate data that cannot possibly be
used to identify individual users, cannot be deleted this way: e.g. (say) the
number of YouTube views for "Despacito" (if you had watched it) will not
decrease by 1 when you delete your activity, because that number was never
associated with you in the first place.)

If something used to be in your Takeout data but is no longer there, that's
most likely because Google no longer has that data about you.

~~~
jborichevskiy
Well, today I learned. Thanks for the thorough explanation.

------
pjmlp
First Google should provide the Java community an platform that actually
supports Java language alongside its standard library instead of Google's
version of J++, just like the NDK supports C and C++ standard library.

None of the other Java vendors has ever had any problem with either Sun or
Oracle.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines)

Or just like with Microsoft with J++, they can create their own .NET aka
Android with either pure Kotlin/Native or Dart and see how successful it will
turn out to be without piggybacking into the Java eco-system (Fuchsia).

~~~
AnimalMuppet
The NDK does not (completely) support the C and C++ standard library. Certain
parts (name resolution, at least, IIRC) are missing.

~~~
pjmlp
Where is name resolution (of what, DNS?) on ISO C and ISO C++ standard?

POSIX is neither part of ISO C nor ISO C++.

------
throwawaymath
What great PR speak. The core topic of the article is an update in the ongoing
copyright legal dispute between Oracle and Google. But the title and opening
paragraph invoke an ethos of justice, which inherently frames Google as a
valiant champion defending freedoms for its users.

~~~
dodobirdlord
In fairness, they are. The entire industry sans Oracle is against Oracle on
this one.

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/89487/20190...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/89487/20190225134131839_18-956_Oracle_v__Google_Computer_Scientists_Amicus_Motion_Brief_FILE.pdf)

~~~
throwawaymath
Sure, but that's not really my point. I don't really care about Google or
Oracle here. I'm saying that Google is spinning it really well, regardless of
whether the spin is justified, so that the framing of their position is more
interesting than just "Google v Oracle update."

That's a really effective framing for any company in a highly publicized legal
dispute. If it happens to be true for Google in this particular dispute,
that's nice but not necessary for the PR speak to be advantageous.

------
ikeboy
... and this is why we're opening our web index so anyone can build
applications on top of it?

Google built one of the most valuable companies in the world on intellectual
property. They want open innovation when it's a competitor being open, or when
being open has strategic benefits. They don't give a damn otherwise.

