[Pet_Ant]

No, if precedent wasn’t a thing, then I’d be for Oracle vs Google. Google wanted to free-ride without contributing. If they could have they’d have made their own language from the beginning. Even then, they didn’t really support real Java but it’s evil twin brother Dalvik. When you are Google-scale you should pay. Noblesse oblige.

[kmeisthax]

Uh, no. Hard no. Literally any legal principle in which Google has to pay for 20 lines of API declarations (which is the thing that Oracle was able to claim copyright over in court) means pretty much the end of software freedom, since reimplementation is how FOSS was bootstrapped. This means that Microsoft could sue Valve for offering Proton on the Steam Deck. GNU and BSD become legally radioactive. Ruffle survives only through detrimental reliance[0]. The entire console emulation community gets sued for hilariously large sums.

Oh, and Oracle now has to pay billions of dollars to Amazon for providing an S3-compatible storage API, completely ending their cloud ambitions and cementing the AWS monopoly.

[0] Adobe published documentation on SWF specifically to encourage browser vendors to reimplement.

[Pet_Ant]

> if precedent wasn’t a thing

It's the size of Google that I feel makes it lose rights. When you are a giant you should lose to compensate for all the power you have as a consequence to the natural accumulation of power. So that Google should pay, doesn't follow that a small start-up should. Unfortunately, the laws are not written that way.

[kmeisthax]

If we're going to throw out the overly-literal interpretation of "equality under the law" that means "exact same rules regardless of socioeconomic status or other context", then why only do this for the very narrow case of API reimplementation? Why not just break up Google for the crime of being a threat to the sovereignty of its host government and people? If Google is powerful enough that we need to start "taking away rights" in order to create a level playing field, then we should start talking about killing Google, if only to minimize how many rights need to be taken away and for how long.

Furthermore, the underlying reason why we're making Google pay is still total bullshit. Remember: we're not arguing for "start-ups should get a pass on copyright infringement but Google should pay billions". We're arguing over 20 function signatures. Nobody should have to pay for that, and any copyright law that covers function signatures is unfit for purpose, even if it's a bill of attainder[0] that only applies to Google.

[0] A law that specifically prescribes a punishment to be applied to one person and one person alone. For example, if Congress were to pass a bill saying "Larry Page is guilty of copyright infringement for scraping the Internet and has no civil rights", that is a bill of attainder.

This is such an easily abusable process that the Constitution, unamended, forbids it.

[Pet_Ant]

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread”

[mcv]

I think Google should have bought Sun when they could. But whatever your opinion on that case is, my point is that copyright is complex and has big grey areas, and having to fight this out in court is going to be way too expensive and risky for most parties involved.