Google wins copyright fight

[pwalker8]

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that Google's use of the Java API in android was fair use, throwing out a lower court ruling. Oracle was suing Google for copyright violations.

IMPO, any expansion of fair use is a good thing. In the context of this forum, expansion of fair use means that corporations are less likely to go after individuals over copyright violation where fair use comes into play, for example with regards to format shifting of ebooks and the like.

[Quoth]

Google is a parasite, but no-one should be able to copyright an API. So in this case I'm glad Google/Alphabet won. They however lied about the use of scanned books and won that case unfairly.

It's not even an expansion of fair use. It was a crazy thing.

There has to be damage proved with alleged copyright violation of format shifting. I don't believe anyone has ever been prosecuted for purely personal use. It's the sharers and uploaders they go after and occasionally downloaders, if bulk. Illegal consumption of cable TV, Satellite Pay TV and streaming is criminal theft of service. But they go after copyright violation on that, which is nothing to do with format shifting, but stealing a subscription service. Governments get fines on Criminal convictions and upper limits. The injured party gets compensation related to damages in a civil case.

So almost all copyright prosecutions are civil cases. No-one is at risk converting / shifting what they paid for if they never share it. This case would have no impact on bought media copyright fair use.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Google is a parasite, but no-one should be able to copyright an API. So in this case I'm glad Google/Alphabet won. They however lied about the use of scanned books and won that case unfairly.

It's not even an expansion of fair use. It was a crazy thing.

There has to be damage proved with alleged copyright violation of format shifting. I don't believe anyone has ever been prosecuted for purely personal use. It's the sharers and uploaders they go after and occasionally downloaders, if bulk. Illegal consumption of cable TV, Satellite Pay TV and streaming is criminal theft of service. But they go after copyright violation on that, which is nothing to do with format shifting, but stealing a subscription service. Governments get fines on Criminal convictions and upper limits. The injured party gets compensation related to damages in a civil case.

So almost all copyright prosecutions are civil cases. No-one is at risk converting / shifting what they paid for if they never share it. This case would have no impact on bought media copyright fair use.

Fair use is tricky in the US, you never know how a judge is going to rule. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling on the case. Yea, Google lied about copying code, but Sun's original view was much like Bell Lab's original view of C. Oracle really likes to push the envelop on trying to extract every dime that they can.

Don't under estimate the power of high profile cases to influence companies. One area to consider is the availability of tools for an individual to exercise format shifting.

[rcentros]

I had forgotten about this case. I followed it closely at first. I'm not a fan of Google or Oracle, but I'm glad Google won this particular case.

[Quoth]

I think it slightly affects WINE, ReactOS and maybe mono, but will have zero impact on format Shifting/Conversion.
The USA needs to ditch DMCA and any legal support for DRM. DRM not only runs contrary to fair use, it runs contrary to Copyright. It is not a Copyright protection scheme in reality, but actually just a way to limit rights and control legitimate customers.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Quoth

I think it slightly affects WINE, ReactOS and maybe mono, but will have zero impact on format Shifting/Conversion.
The USA needs to ditch DMCA and any legal support for DRM. DRM not only runs contrary to fair use, it runs contrary to Copyright. It is not a Copyright protection scheme in reality, but actually just a way to limit rights and control legitimate customers.

The problem is there is no major entity (i.e. large political contributor and lobbyist) for repeal of DMCA, thus nothing will happen. For the most part, I think that DMCA is one of those bad laws that is mostly ignored. DRM has basically become a speed bump to keep Aunt Agnes from sharing books with her reading club and that sort of casual copyright violation, but anyone who wants to can get around it. Bad laws are never repealed, they are simply ignored and not enforced.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Google is a parasite, but no-one should be able to copyright an API.

I mixed. I realize that I don't want "var a = min(b,c)" to be copywrighted such that every computer language must come up with novel syntax (api) for everything.

However, Sun (subsequently purchased by Oracle) spent years and money developing the computer language "java" and building up the business and ecosystem (developers who use java). They made money licensing java.

For Google to just take the language whole hog...but just writing their own implementation...allowed Google to avoid paying Sun/Oracle for their work. Rather than creating their own computer language (which they subsequently have), they copied java so that they could benefit from all the programmers who already knew and liked java.

I'm surprised the Borland Quattro Pro case wasn't brought up. Borland made a look/work-a-like of Lotus 1-2-3. They did what Google did. They didn't steal the actual code behind Lotus, just created their own version that was so much the same, that existing Lotus customers could switch. Borland lost.

Google should have lost. I'm not sure how you could distinguish "no one gets to own an api call" from "no one can whole hog copy a computer language"...but there needs to be a way.

[pata]

Originally Posted by leebase

I'm surprised the Borland Quattro Pro case wasn't brought up. Borland made a look/work-a-like of Lotus 1-2-3. They did what Google did. They didn't steal the actual code behind Lotus, just created their own version that was so much the same, that existing Lotus customers could switch. Borland lost.

Lotus 1-2-3 was a program (app). Java APIs is not... If you read the Judge’s opinion it addresses all the arguments you raise.

FWIW maybe Borland shouldn’t have lost? Ever think to relitigate that case

[theducks]

Quatro Pro user here.
The suit (I think it was a patent violation) was mostly about the Menu and its placement.
(remember, this was in the era of 80 col, 25 lines DOS)

Are you going to put the menu in the center (~line 12)?
How about the right or left, using up ~20 characters of the 80 available?
No, Top or bottom is the obvious PHYSICAL placement.
Patents are not supposed to be issued for OBVIOUS thing.

I remember reading about a (computerized) Encyclopedia claiming they owned the patent for multi-media presentations (Text, pictures and sound) on computers (they lost). This was in the early 80's. I had a TI99-4a that hag games that contained all and I had the Text To Speech module (TI also invented Speak n Spell). Just think if all Video games had to PAY that claimant

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

I mixed. I realize that I don't want "var a = min(b,c)" to be copywrighted such that every computer language must come up with novel syntax (api) for everything.

However, Sun (subsequently purchased by Oracle) spent years and money developing the computer language "java" and building up the business and ecosystem (developers who use java). They made money licensing java.

For Google to just take the language whole hog...but just writing their own implementation...allowed Google to avoid paying Sun/Oracle for their work. Rather than creating their own computer language (which they subsequently have), they copied java so that they could benefit from all the programmers who already knew and liked java.

I'm surprised the Borland Quattro Pro case wasn't brought up. Borland made a look/work-a-like of Lotus 1-2-3. They did what Google did. They didn't steal the actual code behind Lotus, just created their own version that was so much the same, that existing Lotus customers could switch. Borland lost.

Google should have lost. I'm not sure how you could distinguish "no one gets to own an api call" from "no one can whole hog copy a computer language"...but there needs to be a way.

The issue is that we have seen that people are going to push the envelop with regards to patents and copyright and try to get patients and copyrights for anything and everything they think they can sucker a judge into giving them. Sun built java on the intellectual efforts of the various computer languages that came before them. You can see where Java stole aspects from a lot of different languages. Compiler and interpreter technology was stole from previous implementations. I have a computer degree and had a class in writing compilers. Guess what, you are taught various ways of writing based on what has been successful before.

The real issue is that computer code should not be copyrighted. Copyright was never designed for such things. It's just some lawyer came up with a novel legal approach and suckered a technologically incompetent judge to go along with it. Once the precedent was in place, everyone jumped on board. Hey, great, a new way to make money!

Copyrighting computer code and API's is a bit like copyrighting the sentence "The sun rose in the east".

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The real issue is that computer code should not be copyrighted. Copyright was never designed for such things. It's just some lawyer came up with a novel legal approach and suckered a technologically incompetent judge to go along with it. Once the precedent was in place, everyone jumped on board. Hey, great, a new way to make money!

It wasn't novel, computer code is just words and number written down. The law didn't need to treat it any differently to any other collection of words and numbers to decide whether it should be copyrightable or not. Is it original? Is it creative? Is it more than minimal?

But that only protects the exact form that was written down, as with any 'normal' copyright. An independently developed second program that performed the same function would not be covered by the first program's copyright.

Copyrighting computer code and API's is a bit like copyrighting the sentence "The sun rose in the east".

Regardless of the complexity of the code, or the innovation it might embody?
A million LOC project is the same as print("Hello world")?
That is saying that War and Peace is the same as "The sun rose in the east".

[Quoth]

A computer program is not a novel application of copyright. Patenting it is wrong. But a new program automatically has and should have the same copyright protection as any creative work.

It's no different to designing patterns for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_machine

The [Jacquard] machine was invented by Joseph Marie Jacquard in 1804,[4] based on earlier inventions by the Frenchmen Basile Bouchon (1725), Jean Baptiste Falcon (1728), and Jacques Vaucanson (1740).

It's also abysmal that corporations usually own the copyright and not the programming team. The most famous writing equivalents would be Stratemeyer Syndicate (Hardy Boys, Bobbsey Twins, Nancy Drew).

Disney and friends, DRM, DMCA and weaponisation of copyright by Corporations bring it into disrepute.
Don't confuse it with Patents, Design Patents (UK Registered Design) and Trademarks. The USPTO has been broken since Edison.

There has been a lot of simply wrong comments about Java (which was and is free for the desktop, Mobile Java was a different thing) which Oracle was refusing to license AT ALL for Mobile! Oracle simply bought Sun.

A lot of FUD about copyright, which is actually really simple compared to patents.

Also APIs are absolutely not computer programs. They are almost like book titles, which are not copyright. An API is the text to invoke parts of programs. The copyright part is the internal implementation. You can't execute an API = Application Programming Interface.
People have been copying them on computers since the 1950s!


See also
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/..._case_opinion/
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/06/xinuous/
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/...ver_oracle_in/

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It's also abysmal that corporations usually own the copyright and not the programming team.

As someone whose full time job is to write software for a company: No it isn't.
They pay me to do a job, the job is writing software for them, it is a work for hire.
Why would they pay me to produce something that I then own? If I wanted that, I should be an independent developer, and finance my own software development.
If they were paying me to write manuals for the software, would I expect to own the copyright in the manual text? Of course not.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

As someone whose full time job is to write software for a company: No it isn't.
They pay me to do a job, the job is writing software for them, it is a work for hire..

Exactly the attitude of Stratemeyer Syndicate and Disney. That's why I referenced Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. Programmers are mostly treated worse than Ghost Writers, who may or may not have copyright, but morally should have a proportion of the royalties.

Yes, absolutely the law is that they own the copyright entirely because you are purely hired.

But it's actually legalised intellectual theft. Programming isn't like production assembly, serving in a shop or restaurant, support in a call centre. It's mostly a creative intellectual activity built on prior art. There needs to be reform. There should be a sharing of the copyright.

But either way, no matter if you a purely a hired labourer, OR a creative person with a suitable contract, the software is automatically copyright as it's written.

I had a royalty clause in my last contract. I wrote it in and said, "It's not greedy, accept it or I walk away." It never amounted to anything, and famously film companies have often artificially made a loss to avoid paying royalties to actors or scriptwriters. But it was the moral principle. Designing and implementing software isn't an activity that only happens at the desk in hours, and like writing a novel, it's not an automatic style of activity like non-creative jobs.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Yes, absolutely the law is that they own the copyright entirely because you are purely hired.

But it's actually legalised intellectual theft.

No it isn't, and just saying so doesn't make it true.
They haven't stolen the work I produced, they have bought it from me, bit by bit, hour by hour, at a rate agreed upon as a salary, in advance. This was known to both sides before I started the job.
It is as far from theft as you can get.

Programming isn't like production assembly, serving in a shop or restaurant, support in a call centre. It's mostly a creative intellectual activity built on prior art.
[...]
Designing and implementing software isn't an activity that only happens at the desk in hours, and like writing a novel, it's not an automatic style of activity like non-creative jobs.

I know, I have done it all my life.
I've never thought that the work the company has paid me to do should belong to me rather than them.
As I asked before, why on earth would they pay me to produce something I then owned and could control how they used?

There needs to be reform. There should be a sharing of the copyright.

As someone actually doing this, seems to be working fine as-is.
If I wanted to take the risk and benefit myself, I'd have started my own software house, developed software and tried to market it. Like an author writing their own books.
Instead, I'm much happier for someone else to take that risk and benefit, in return for a guaranteed salary, and a job I enjoy. Like an in-house writer.
Why do you think that both roles shouldn't exist?

Exactly the attitude of Stratemeyer Syndicate and Disney. That's why I referenced Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. Programmers are mostly treated worse than Ghost Writers, who may or may not have copyright, but morally should have a proportion of the royalties.

Why?
They agreed to do a job, for a price, knowing in advance that that price was all they would get. If they were guaranteed a share of the royalties, then the up-front payment would be less.
They've chosen, as I have, to take a safer fixed income, rather than a riskier, but possibly higher income. Why should they be prevented from doing that?