Programming, as we know it, is coming to an end.
All progressive humanity is following the process of Oracle against Google with bated breath. Very soon the jury will make a verdict on the case. Under the translation is a translation of the article by Andrew Binstock, the chief editor of www.drdobbs.com, about what will happen if Oracle wins.
If Oracle defends its claim in court that copyright may extend to an API, then almost all aspects of programming will change for the worse.
Oracle has always disliked developers. In the veins of Microsoft and Google, the blood of the founders of programmers flows, and Oracle is primarily a database company that mercilessly pursues its business goals and does not take prisoners. The company is not interested in whether such a gambling approach to technology is enjoyed by developers or any other community. Consumers, competitors, and even their own customers are afraid of Oracle in all segments of the market in which the company is present, since only their own interests matter to Oracle and Oracle has already shown examples of aggression.
')
Thus, it is not surprising that now Oracle is suing Google in San Francisco, claiming that Google infringed their patent while developing the Android operating system. Of course, Google is not a violent supporter of licensing and copyright, and often extends the limits of legally permissible in this area in order to gain access to as much data as possible. His battles with copyright-based publishers became legendary and, in general, Google was forced to retreat. His broad views on data access caused scandals around Street View services and the GDrive just introduced.
So, the meeting of two monsters in court was almost inevitable. At the beginning, Oracle’s suit and Google’s counterclaim looked like one of those cases that it’s so interesting to look at from the court of the United States Department of Justice against Microsoft ten years ago. However, the events in San Francisco began to take a dark turn when Oracle put forward an ominous theory: Google violated Oracle's copyright in Java by implementing the Java API for Android. Now the jury is deciding whether the API can be the subject of copyright, and if Oracle defends its point of view, this will lead to very contradictory consequences for the software development industry.
In a nutshell, if they decide that Oracle is right, that the copyright in the headers of each Java source file is exactly the API syntax, then Oracle can charge Google fees for implementing these APIs without the blessing of Oracle (or more specifically, without a license). If this happens, many products will suddenly find themselves in an incomprehensible legal situation, when they were previously non-dangerous, and now copyright holders authorized by the court may bring punitive actions. Mostly at risk are alternative implementations of existing programming languages. Namely, Jython, IronPython and PyPy for Python; JRuby, IronRuby and Rubinius for Ruby; Mono for C # and VB; maybe C ++ for C, GCC for C, C ++ and Objective-C and so on. And, of course, all browsers using JavaScript may well owe royalties to the heirs of Netscape intellectual property.
Virtually any implementation of a programming language that has not yet been sued by copyright holders will be under suspicion until copyright holders declare an indefinite rejection of any threats against them. There is no reason to believe that copyright owners would agree to this. And we already know that Oracle does not agree. And who said that Bell Labs owners care about the negative consequences of a copyright claim to a programming language more than about their desire to receive dozens, if not hundreds, of millions of licensing fees.
The problem, of course, is not limited to programming languages. Is Linux at risk from replaying the UNIX API? What about different ported libraries? Maybe yes.
During the trial, the last two Sun CEOs voiced opposing evidence. In short, Jonathan Schwartz supported Google’s point of view (and his e-mail congratulating Google on the creation of Android became an important part of the testimony), and Scott McNealy clearly showed that the copyright possibility on the API was, the API was subject to copyright and sold by third parties without a license is prohibited. And this is not surprising. McNealy fought UNIX wars on behalf of Solaris, claiming that additional libraries and APIs distinguished it from HP-UX, IRIX, and AIX. I have no doubt that if this case were considered 15 years ago, McNealy would have given exactly the same testimony. Specific libraries and APIs have become a key factor for gaining and maintaining competitive advantage.
Such an API role speaks in favor of Oracle’s viewpoint that they are proprietary and are not intended for free use by unlicensed parties who would like to implement them. And Google’s internal discussion, which shows that they knew that they might need a license, also supports the idea that the API is property. On this basis, and on the basis of the fact that every document has been carefully marked down with copyright, I, unfortunately, must state that the jurymen can tell us bad news when they return from the discussion. Of course, I really hope that I am mistaken.
However, there is a ray of hope: the jury can confirm that the API is subject to copyright, but the use of function signature syntax is valid. This will retain the right to an alternative API implementation forever without the risk of infringing copyright. And that would be reasonable.
The courts are constantly causing concern in the history of computer development. Strange verdicts than those at which Oracle would turn out to be completely right were also made. Recall the case of Lotus v. Borland in 1990, which ended with the decision that the menu hierarchy is subject to copyright. And only the US Supreme Court in 1996 overturned this nonsense. Let's hope that this time it will not take so much litigation to prove forever that the APIs can be freely copied.
(From the translator: it is possible that this record will help you to feel a little more about the specifics of the analysis of technological cases in court)
If Oracle defends its claim in court that copyright may extend to an API, then almost all aspects of programming will change for the worse.
Oracle has always disliked developers. In the veins of Microsoft and Google, the blood of the founders of programmers flows, and Oracle is primarily a database company that mercilessly pursues its business goals and does not take prisoners. The company is not interested in whether such a gambling approach to technology is enjoyed by developers or any other community. Consumers, competitors, and even their own customers are afraid of Oracle in all segments of the market in which the company is present, since only their own interests matter to Oracle and Oracle has already shown examples of aggression.
')
Thus, it is not surprising that now Oracle is suing Google in San Francisco, claiming that Google infringed their patent while developing the Android operating system. Of course, Google is not a violent supporter of licensing and copyright, and often extends the limits of legally permissible in this area in order to gain access to as much data as possible. His battles with copyright-based publishers became legendary and, in general, Google was forced to retreat. His broad views on data access caused scandals around Street View services and the GDrive just introduced.
So, the meeting of two monsters in court was almost inevitable. At the beginning, Oracle’s suit and Google’s counterclaim looked like one of those cases that it’s so interesting to look at from the court of the United States Department of Justice against Microsoft ten years ago. However, the events in San Francisco began to take a dark turn when Oracle put forward an ominous theory: Google violated Oracle's copyright in Java by implementing the Java API for Android. Now the jury is deciding whether the API can be the subject of copyright, and if Oracle defends its point of view, this will lead to very contradictory consequences for the software development industry.
In a nutshell, if they decide that Oracle is right, that the copyright in the headers of each Java source file is exactly the API syntax, then Oracle can charge Google fees for implementing these APIs without the blessing of Oracle (or more specifically, without a license). If this happens, many products will suddenly find themselves in an incomprehensible legal situation, when they were previously non-dangerous, and now copyright holders authorized by the court may bring punitive actions. Mostly at risk are alternative implementations of existing programming languages. Namely, Jython, IronPython and PyPy for Python; JRuby, IronRuby and Rubinius for Ruby; Mono for C # and VB; maybe C ++ for C, GCC for C, C ++ and Objective-C and so on. And, of course, all browsers using JavaScript may well owe royalties to the heirs of Netscape intellectual property.
Virtually any implementation of a programming language that has not yet been sued by copyright holders will be under suspicion until copyright holders declare an indefinite rejection of any threats against them. There is no reason to believe that copyright owners would agree to this. And we already know that Oracle does not agree. And who said that Bell Labs owners care about the negative consequences of a copyright claim to a programming language more than about their desire to receive dozens, if not hundreds, of millions of licensing fees.
The problem, of course, is not limited to programming languages. Is Linux at risk from replaying the UNIX API? What about different ported libraries? Maybe yes.
During the trial, the last two Sun CEOs voiced opposing evidence. In short, Jonathan Schwartz supported Google’s point of view (and his e-mail congratulating Google on the creation of Android became an important part of the testimony), and Scott McNealy clearly showed that the copyright possibility on the API was, the API was subject to copyright and sold by third parties without a license is prohibited. And this is not surprising. McNealy fought UNIX wars on behalf of Solaris, claiming that additional libraries and APIs distinguished it from HP-UX, IRIX, and AIX. I have no doubt that if this case were considered 15 years ago, McNealy would have given exactly the same testimony. Specific libraries and APIs have become a key factor for gaining and maintaining competitive advantage.
Such an API role speaks in favor of Oracle’s viewpoint that they are proprietary and are not intended for free use by unlicensed parties who would like to implement them. And Google’s internal discussion, which shows that they knew that they might need a license, also supports the idea that the API is property. On this basis, and on the basis of the fact that every document has been carefully marked down with copyright, I, unfortunately, must state that the jurymen can tell us bad news when they return from the discussion. Of course, I really hope that I am mistaken.
However, there is a ray of hope: the jury can confirm that the API is subject to copyright, but the use of function signature syntax is valid. This will retain the right to an alternative API implementation forever without the risk of infringing copyright. And that would be reasonable.
The courts are constantly causing concern in the history of computer development. Strange verdicts than those at which Oracle would turn out to be completely right were also made. Recall the case of Lotus v. Borland in 1990, which ended with the decision that the menu hierarchy is subject to copyright. And only the US Supreme Court in 1996 overturned this nonsense. Let's hope that this time it will not take so much litigation to prove forever that the APIs can be freely copied.
(From the translator: it is possible that this record will help you to feel a little more about the specifics of the analysis of technological cases in court)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/143173/
All Articles