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

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Posted Apr 6, 2021 18:55 UTC (Tue) by zuki (subscriber, #41808)
In reply to: US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle by jhhaller
Parent article: US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

> 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!

to post comments

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.