US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle [LWN.net]

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 5, 2021 17:55 UTC (Mon) by jhhaller (guest, #56103)
Parent article: US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

It is still interesting to look at the dissenting opinion. Amazon used Java ME in building the Kindle. After Google released Android, Amazon was able to negotiate a 97.5% discount on their license fees. Samsung's license for Java ME dropped from $40 million to about $1 million. Obviously, both parties had the opportunity to switch to Android, and did. The dissenting opinion was also concerned that the majorities' opinion would open fair use far beyond this particular case. One could potentially use this argument to take some small amount of GPL code and add it to a commercial product and consider it fair use. While the dissenting opinion didn't specifically mention that case, it's not too much of a stretch, even if the dissenting opinion's possible outcomes (like using Microsoft Word to write a manuscript would make Word not subject to copyright were a stretch, in my opinion. But, I do think this case will make it harder sue GPL violators when they use a fair use defense.

While the court did not decide on whether this code was actually something for which copyright could be applied, the dissent did consider the code to be subject to copyright. A much better result would have resulted from convincing Congress that it is worthwhile to not subject software API definitions to copyright.

to post comments

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 5, 2021 18:31 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

> Obviously, both parties had the opportunity to switch to Android, and did.

I don't understand. The Kindle does not use Android, and never has. The Kindle Fire does use Android, and always has. Amazon never switched anything.

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 5, 2021 19:14 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

And I presume Samsung and Amazon were using Java? That's very different to just re-implementing the API.

Cheers,
Wol

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 5, 2021 19:36 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The Kindle uses cvm, rather than the more conventional desktop java VM, but yes it's the upstream thing, not a reimplementation.

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 5, 2021 19:30 UTC (Mon) by jhhaller (guest, #56103) [Link]

The Kindle must use Java ME, based on the decision. While it didn't change to Android, the Kindle Fire did not start with the Kindle base, but the Android base. I'm speculating there were discussions about changing new Kindles to Android if the price didn't drop. The BOM would have been higher, but a lower software cost may have made up for it.

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 6, 2021 0:57 UTC (Tue) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

I don't think this has a major effect on GPL issues, since it is solely about declaring code (C header files for eg), not about implementations. It does mean that libeditline is fair use though.

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 6, 2021 18:55 UTC (Tue) by zuki (subscriber, #41808) [Link] (4 responses)

> It is still interesting to look at the dissenting opinion.

It is!

>>> Declaring code defines the scope of a set of implementing code and gives a programmer a way to use it by shortcut. Because declaring code incorporates implementing code, it has no function on its own.

I think Justice Thomas gets this crucial fact wrong. I think any programmer would say that the opposite is true: "declaring code" does not "incorporate implementing code", and very much has a function of its own. As an example, in test-driver-development we are encouraged to create "declaring code" without any implementation, and then use it, first without any implementation… And obviously there are many examples of implementations created independently to an API specification.

>>> The functionality of both declaring code and implementing code will thus typically rise and fall together.

This is also not true.

And the rest of his argument seems to be based on this (false, imo) understanding.

He also summarizes the majority opinion nicely:

>>> The result of this distorting analysis is an opinion that makes it difficult to imagine any circumstance in which declaring code will remain protected by copyright.

Yay!

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 6, 2021 19:19 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (2 responses)

My favorite paragraph in the majority opinion:

> JUSTICE THOMAS’ thoughtful dissent offers a very different view of how (and perhaps whether) fair use has any role
> to play for computer programs. We are told that no attempt
> to distinguish among computer code is tenable when considering “the nature of the work,” see post, at 10, even
> though there are important distinctions in the ways that
> programs are used and designed, post, at 18 (“The declaring
> code is what attracted programmers”). We are told that no
> reuse of code in a new program will ever have a valid “purpose and character,” post, at 16, even though the reasons
> for copying computer code may vary greatly and differ from
> those applicable to other sorts of works, ibid. (accepting
> that copying as part of “reverse engineer[ing] a system to
> ensure compatibility” could be a valid purpose). And we are
> told that our fair use analysis must prioritize certain factors
> over others, post, at 9, n. 5, even though our case law instructs that fair use depends on the context, see Campbell,
> 510 U. S., at 577–578.

Breyer is basically saying "See how wrong Justice Thomas is? I barely even have to respond to his arguments, he practically refutes himself." All cloaked in a respectful and collegial tone, but damn, this is some savage legal writing.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google and wanted Google to win, but those two facts are mostly unrelated.)

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 6, 2021 22:53 UTC (Tue) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]

Even Scalia, who routinely relied on Thomas' vote, had nothing good to say about him.

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 11, 2021 14:58 UTC (Sun) by Nemo_bis (guest, #88187) [Link]

Breyer always puts such juicy bits in his footnotes!

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 8, 2021 4:20 UTC (Thu) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

Sadly, Thomas crafting opinions out of his personal ignorance is not new.

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 7, 2021 8:08 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (1 responses)

Java ME valuation was always going to crash with or without Android, it was an astonishingly bad product constrained by pre-smartphone design decisions, had Android tanked WebOS would have had the same effect on its valuation (the whole point of Java ME was to pretend handhelds were not full-blown computers and did not need a full-blown execution environment).

However, because only one judge bought Oracle’s argument that Java ME was a great product betrayed by Google, no one bothered to disprove it.

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 7, 2021 8:17 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

BTW, if you want to dissect the judgment, when the other judges agreed on the transformative character of Android, as one reason it was all fair use, they basically agreed existing Java positioning on mobile was crap and ripe for disruption. Which also means they disagreed with Oracle’s inflated claims of Java ME valuation.