Oracle Is Wrong About Having Permission To Reimplement Amazon's API. But They Shouldn't Need It.

from the oracle-wrong?-what-a-surprise dept

Readers of this site no doubt know that Oracle’s arguments in its lawsuit against Google, set to be argued in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, could spell disaster for the computer industry, by turning the act of reimplementing an API into copyright infringement. Back in January, I revealed in an Ars Technica piece that it could even spell disaster for Oracle itself, because Oracle’s cloud storage service reimplements Amazon’s S3 API. Oracle did not dispute my findings but shrugged them off, claiming Amazon had granted permission. I was skeptical, but at the time did not have hard evidence to prove a negative that Oracle had no license.

I’ve now found the evidence for why Oracle should be worried. And more importantly, it shows why every tech company and startup should be worried about the Google v. Oracle case.

What Oracle pointed me to in January was an open source Apache license for Amazon's Java SDK software. This was curious at the time because the SDK doesn’t implement S3 or any other cloud service; it uses the API by calling a handful of its functions. Code that calls an API is distinct from the API itself, so permission to copy API-calling code is not permission to implement an API (assuming, as Oracle does, that you need permission to implement an API). To repurpose a favorite analogy of Oracle’s lawyers, buying the rights to an authorized Harry Potter fanfic does not give one permission to reproduce Chamber of Secrets. Nevertheless, the idea that the SDK license gave Oracle the right to reimplement Amazon’s API continues to circulate among Oracle’s supporters.

The problem is, Amazon itself doesn’t believe it has licensed its cloud API. In 2012, a company called Eucalyptus Systems announced that it had negotiated a license with Amazon to reimplement APIs including S3. Reports of the deal suggest that Amazon was not handing out licenses to just anyone: “Amazon chose to partner with Eucalyptus,” said a representative for the latter company.

The Apache license for the Java SDK has been in place since at least 2010—two years before the Eucalyptus deal. If, as Oracle claims, everyone already had an Apache license to reimplement the S3 API, then there was no reason for Amazon to negotiate out an individual license with Eucalyptus, and there was no reason for Eucalyptus to promote its success in obtaining that license.

In 2014, Eucalyptus was acquired by HP, which raised the question of whether the acquired firm's API license would transfer. In reporting on the acquisition, one journalist (who apparently now works for Oracle) quoted an anonymous cloud service vendor who described Amazon as “anything but generous on API licensing.” Again, that would make no sense if Amazon had Apache-licensed reimplementation of its APIs in 2010.

Notably, Amazon's licensing behavior doesn't say much about whether Amazon actually agrees that API reimplementation is copyright infringement. Numerous people have noted that Amazon never has and probably never will bring a copyright case in court. But risk-averse businesses will want certainty—even the CEO of Eucalyptus did not believe that APIs were copyrightable, but still got a license as "belts and suspenders." And many major cloud service vendors have not reimplemented Amazon's APIs despite the obvious benefits of doing so. As one cloud service executive put it in 2014, the Oracle v. Google litigation has made it "more dangerous to use someone’s API design without consulting them first."

Besides poking a massive hole in Oracle’s Apache-license theory, this “consult first” mentality shows how troublesome Oracle’s copyright theory is. Eucalyptus is not a traditional cloud service provider competing head-to-head with Amazon, but rather software for on-premises servers, allowing companies essentially to run a cloud computing system like AWS on their own computers. Amazon is not in the business of deploying on-site enterprise servers, so Eucalyptus would not have undercut Amazon’s profits—in fact, it probably would have increased Amazon’s profits by locking companies into Amazon’s API even before they switch from on-site servers to the cloud.

The permission culture mentality, applied to the computer industry, could end up only locking in consumers, boosting big firms, and shutting out disruptive startups from competing in the market. In evaluating Oracle's theory of API copyright, the Supreme Court could either reject it and open the door to robust competition in the technology space, or approve copyright in APIs and entrench dominant services for years to come.

Filed Under: apache license, api, copyright, java sdk, reimplementation, s3, s3 api
Companies: amazon, eucalyptus systems, google, hp, oracle

Astronomers Say Space X Astronomy Pollution Can't Be Fixed

from the blinded-by-the-light dept

We recently noted how the Space X launch of low orbit broadband satellites is not only creating light pollution for astronomers and scientists, but captured U.S. regulators, eager to try and justify rampant deregulation, haven't been willing to do anything about it. While Space X's Starlink platform will create some much needed broadband competition for rural users, the usual capacity constraints of satellite broadband mean it won't be a major disruption to incumbent broadband providers. Experts say it will be painfully disruptive to scientific study and research, however:

While Space X says it's taking steps to minimize the glare and "photo bombing" capabilities of these satellites (such as anti-reflective coating on the most problematic parts of the satellites), a new study suggests that won't be so easy. The joint study from both the National Science Foundation's NOIRLab and the American Astronomical Society (AAS) found that while Space X light pollution can be minimized somewhat, it won't be possible to eliminate:

"Changes are required at both ends: constellation operators and observatories. SpaceX has shown that operators can reduce reflected sunlight through satellite body orientation, Sun shielding, and surface darkening. A joint effort to obtain higher-accuracy public data on predicted locations of individual satellites (or ephemerides) could enable some pointing avoidance and mid-exposure shuttering during satellite passage. Observatories will need to adopt more dynamic scheduling and observation management as the number of constellation satellites increases, though even these measures will be ineffective for many science programs."

Granted, in March, Space X boss Elon Musk predicted there would be no impact whatsoever from his Starlink project:

"I am confident that we will not cause any impact whatsoever in astronomical discoveries. Zero. That's my prediction. We'll take corrective action if it's above zero."

The report, which was first spotted by Ars Technica, notes that enough data has been collected to clearly indicate the impact is well above zero. Worse, they note that companies have only just started launching low-orbit satellite constellations. OneWeb and Space X have only just begun their efforts, and Amazon is expected to join the fray in a major way. Collectively, these launches will create some significant problems for scientists around the planet, the report concludes:

"If the 100,000 or more LEOsats proposed by many companies and many governments are deployed, no combination of mitigations can fully avoid the impacts of the satellite trails on the science programs of current and planned ground-based optical-NIR [near-infrared] astronomy facilities. Astronomers are just beginning to understand the full range of impacts on the discipline. Astrophotography, amateur astronomy, and the human experience of the stars and the Milky Way are already affected."

While Space X's lower altitude satellite are problematic, higher altitude satellites being eyed by the likes of Amazon are notably worse, the experts found. In a press release the groups detailed several ways of minimizing the impact of low-orbit satellite constellations (including launching less of them). But that's going to require a lot of collaboration between researchers and industry. Collaboration that would be easier if we had U.S. regulators actually interested in helping coordinate that collaboration.

Filed Under: astronomy, fcc, leo satellites, satellite broadband, space pollution
Companies: amazon, oneweb, spacex

FBI Horrified To Discover Ring Doorbells Can Tip Off Citizens To The Presence Of Federal Officers At Their Door

from the those-bastards-and-their-surreptitious-cameras dept

Ring's camera/doorbells may as well be branded with local law enforcement agency logos. Since Amazon acquired the company, Ring has cornered the law enforcement-adjacent market for home security products, partnering with hundreds of agencies to get Ring's products into the hands of residents. A lot of this flows directly through police departments, which can get them almost for free as long as they push citizens towards using Ring's snitch app, Neighbors, and allow Ring to handle the PR work.

So, it's hilarious to find out the FBI is concerned about Ring cameras, considering the company's unabashed love for all things law enforcement. The Intercept -- diving back into the "Blue Leaks" stash of exfiltrated law enforcement documents -- has posted an FBI "Technical Analysis Bulletin" [PDF] warning cops about the threat Ring cameras pose to cops. After celebrating the golden age of surveillance the Internet of Things has ushered in, the FBI notes that doorbell cameras see everyone who comes to someone's door -- even if it's people who'd rather the absent resident remained unaware of.

The document describes a 2017 incident in which FBI agents approached a New Orleans home to serve a search warrant and were caught on video. “Through the Wi-Fi doorbell system, the subject of the warrant remotely viewed the activity at his residence from another location and contacted his neighbor and landlord regarding the FBI’s presence there,” it states.

Ratted out by home security tech -- the kind often pushed on residents by law enforcement officers hoping to expand their surveillance networks by deputizing doorbells. Ring's cameras aren't just mute witnesses. Owners receive notifications when someone comes to their door and, depending on model, are able to hold conversations with them using built-in mics and speakers.

This means the sneak-and-peek feds might have been overhead discussing their tactical plans or specifics about the investigation. Hilarious. And this is how another FBI document on the subject of doorbells puts it, turning a normal home security device into a devious tool to be wielded against law enforcement:

“[S]ubject was able to see and hear everything happening at his residence” and possibly “covertly monitor law enforcement activity while law enforcement was on the premises…"

Covert monitoring is the best monitoring, as these FBI agents are well-aware. Sucks when it's the alleged perps doing the covert monitoring, I guess. And it sucks when the FBI decides now is the time to be hot and bothered when security cameras have been catching cops visiting/raiding properties for years. Audio recording isn't some new technology either, so if cops haven't been clued into this possibility already, they have no one to blame but themselves.

The documents are fascinating, and not just because they appear to turn Ring into a co-conspirator in crimes after so many years of being besties with law enforcement. It also shows how much goes unnoticed by people who routinely cite their years of training and experience when applying for search warrants. This should have been obvious from day one.

Filed Under: doorbells, fbi, ring, surveillance, warrants
Companies: amazon, ring

House Judiciary Spends 5.5 Hours Making Themselves Look Foolish, Without Asking Many Actual Tough Questions Of Tech CEOs

from the what-did-I-just... dept

How was your Wednesday? I spent 5 and a half hours of mine watching the most inane and stupid hearing put on by Rep. David Cicilline, and the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial & Administrative Law. The hearing was billed as a big antitrust showdown, in which the CEOs of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon would all answer questions regarding an antitrust investigation into those four companies. If you are also a glutton for punishment, you can now watch the whole thing yourself too (though, at least you can watch it at 2x speed). I'll save you a bit of time though: there was very little discussion of actual antitrust. There was plenty of airing of grievances, however, frequently with little to no basis in reality.

If you want to read my realtime reactions to the nonsense, there's a fairly long Twitter thread. If you want a short summary, it's this: everyone who spoke is angry about some aspect of these companies but (and this is kind of important) there is no consensus about why and the reasons for their anger is often contradictory. The most obvious example of this played out in regards to discussions that were raised about the decision earlier this week by YouTube and Facebook (and Twitter) to take down an incredibly ridiculous Breitbart video showing a group of "doctors" spewing dangerous nonsense regarding COVID-19 and how to treat it (and how not to treat it). The video went viral, and a whole bunch of people were sharing it, even though one of the main stars apparently believes in Alien DNA and Demon Sperm. Also, when Facebook took down the video, she suggested that God would punish Facebook by crashing its servers.

However, during the hearing, there were multiple Republican lawmakers who were furious at Facebook and YouTube for removing such content, and tried to extract promises that the platforms would no longer "interfere." Amusingly (or, not really), at one point, Jim Sensenbrenner even demanded that Mark Zuckerberg answer why Donald Trump Jr.'s account had been suspended for sharing such a video -- which is kind of embarrassing since it was Twitter, not Facebook, that temporarily suspended Junior's account (and it was for spreading disinfo about COVID, which that video absolutely was). Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Rep. Cicilline was positively livid that 20 million people still saw that video, and couldn't believe that it took Facebook five full hours to decide to delete the video.

So, you had Republicans demanding these companies keep those videos up, and Democrats demanding they take the videos down faster. What exactly are these companies supposed to do?

Similarly, Rep. Jim Jordan made some conspiracy theory claims saying that Google tried to help Hillary Clinton win in 2016 (the fact that she did not might raise questions about how Jordan could then argue they have too much power, but...) and demanded that they promise not to "help Biden." On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Jamie Raskin complained about how Facebook allowed Russians and others to swing the election to Trump, and demanded to know how Facebook would prevent that in the future.

So... basically both sides were saying that if their tools are used to influence elections, bad things might happen. It just depends on which side wins to see which side will want to do the punishing.

Nearly all of the Representatives spent most of their time grandstanding -- rarely about issues related to antitrust -- and frequently demonstrating their own technological incompetence. Rep. Greg Steube whined that his campaign emails were being filtered to spam, and argued that it was Gmail unfairly handicapping conservatives. His "evidence" for this was that it didn't happen before he joined Congress last year, and that he'd never heard of it happening to Democrats (a few Democrats noted later that it does happen to them). Also, he said his own father found his campaign ads in spam, and so clearly it wasn't because his father marked them as spam. Sundar Pichai had to explain to Rep. Steube that (1) they don't spy on emails so they have no way of knowing that emails were between a father and son, and (2) that emails go to spam based on a variety of factors, including how other users rate them. In other words, Steube's own campaign is (1) bad at email and (2) his constituents are probably trashing the emails. It's not anti-conservative bias.

Rep. Ken Buck went on an unhinged rant, claiming that Google was in cahoots with communist China and against the US government.

On that front, Rep. Jim Jordan put on quite a show, repeatedly misrepresenting various content moderation decisions as "proof" of anti-conservative bias. Nearly every one of those examples he misrepresented. And then when a few other Reps. pointed out that he was resorting to fringe conspiracy theories he started shouting and had to be told repeatedly to stop interrupting (and to put on his mask). Later, at the end of the hearing, he went on a bizarre rant about "cancel culture" and demanded each of the four CEOs to state whether or not they thought cancel culture was good or bad. What that has to do with their companies, I do not know. What that has to do with antitrust, I have even less of an idea.

A general pattern, on both sides of the aisle was that a Representative would describe a news story or scenario regarding one of the platforms in a way that misrepresented what actually happened, and painted the companies in the worst possible light, and then would ask a "and have you stopped beating your wife?" type of question. Each of the four CEOs, when put on the spot like that, would say something along the lines of "I must respectfully disagree with the premise..." or "I don't think that's an accurate representation..." at which point (like clockwork) they were cut off by the Representative, with a stern look, and something along the lines of "so you won't answer the question?!?" or "I don't want to hear about that -- I just want a yes or no!"

It was... ridiculous -- in a totally bipartisan manner. Cicilline was just as bad as Jordan in completely misrepresenting things and pretending he'd "caught" these companies in some bad behavior that was not even remotely accurate. This is not to say the companies haven't done questionable things, but neither Cicilline nor Jordan demonstrated any knowledge of what those things were, preferring to push out fringe conspiracy theories. Others pushing fringe wacko theories included Rep. Matt Gaetz on the Republican side (who was all over the map with just wrong things, including demanding that the platforms would support law enforcement) and Rep. Lucy McBath on the Democratic side, who seemed very, very confused about the nature of cookies on the internet. She also completely misrepresented a situation regarding how Apple handled a privacy situation, suggesting that protecting user's privacy by blocking certain apps that had privacy issues was anti-competitive.

There were a few Representatives who weren't totally crazy. On the Republican side, Rep. Kelly Armstrong asked some thoughtful questions about reverse warrants (not an antitrust issue, but an important 4th Amendment one) and about Amazon's use of competitive data (but... he also used the debunked claim that Google tried to "defund" The Federalist, and used the story about bunches of DMCA notices going to Twitch to say that Twitch should be forced to pre-license all music, a la the EU Copyright Directive -- which, of course, would harm competition, since only a few companies could actually afford to do that). On the Democratic side, Rep. Raskin rightly pointed out the hypocrisy of Republicans who support Citizens United, but were mad that companies might politically support candidates they don't like (what that has to do with antitrust is beyond me, but it was a worthwhile point). Rep. Joe Neguse asked some good questions that were actually about competition, but for which there weren't very clear answers.

All in all, some will say it was just another typical Congressional hearing in which Congress displays its technological ignorance. And that may be true. But it is disappointing. What could have been a useful and productive discussion with these four important CEOs was anything but. What could have been an actual exploration of questions around market power and consumer welfare... was not. It was all just a big performance. And that's disappointing on multiple levels. It was a waste of time, and will be used to reinforce various narratives.

But, from this end, the only narrative it reinforced was that Congress is woefully ignorant about technology and how these companies operate. And they showed few signs of actually being curious in understanding the truth.

Filed Under: antitrust, bias, big tech, david cicilline, greg steube, house judiciary, jamie raskin, jeff bezos, jim jordan, jim sensenbrenner, joe neguse, kelly armstrong, ken buck, lucy mcbath, mark zuckerberg, matt gaetz, politics, sundar pichai, techlash, tim coo
Companies: amazon, apple, facebook, google

After 100 Years As A Bullying Gatekeeper, AT&T Pivots To Whining Unironically About Bullying Gatekeepers

from the comes-around-goes-around dept

For decades, incumbent broadband and television giants like Comcast and AT&T enjoyed life from a comfortable position of monopoly dominance. If you want to subscribe to broadband, such companies are often your only option. If you wanted to subscribe to television service, you were required to rent a locked down, highly proprietary cable box courtesy of the industry's cable hardware monopoly. Are you a broadcaster and want to have your cable channel in a conspicuous position in the lineup? Expect headaches. Want to use their utility poles to build a decent competitor? Expect a lot of bullshit.

Natural monopolies are a pain in the ass. Telecom monopolies like AT&T, whose domination spans the better part of a century, are a very particular type of pain in the ass. But with cord cutting and the rise of streaming changing at least part of their business equations, it's interesting to watch how these giants of yesterday are now struggling to adapt to a new era in which they not only no longer dominate, but often have to collaborate.

Case in point. Before its 2015 merger with DirecTV and 2018 merger with Time Warner, AT&T -- a company with a thirty year track record of obvious, documented, monopolistic behavior -- told anybody who'd listen that there was simply no way that the company would use the greater scale from its merger ambitions to behave badly.

While U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon bought into that nonsense, AT&T quickly set about proving to everybody that critics were right to worry. It set about abusing its broadband monopoly to thwart streaming competitors, drove up TV prices on consumers and competitors alike, and began withholding HBO content from competitors. All things it swore to the courts it wouldn't do, and all while its lobbyists set about dismantling consumer protections (like net neutrality rules) designed specifically to thwart this kind of behavior.

As AT&T attempts (poorly) to pivot toward the cord cutting generation, the company is suddenly finding itself in an alien predicament: it has to innovate, collaborate, and compete. But with companies like Roku and Amazon now dominating the streaming hardware space, AT&T's been having a hard time bullying them into carrying its streaming platform. In turn, AT&T has gotten a bit pouty as it tries to explain why, despite all this bullying, posturing, bullshit, and market domination, it still managed to lose nearly 1 million TV subscribers last quarter and nearly four million subscribers in just the last few years:

"AT&T’s chief executive, John Stankey, had some harsh words for Amazon on the earnings call after the report. “We’ve tried repeatedly to make HBO Max available” on Amazon, he said. “Unfortunately, Amazon has taken an approach of treating HBO Max and its customers differently than how they’ve chosen to treat other services and their customers."

Not that intellectual consistency is a thing we do anymore in the United States, but some observers justifiably found AT&T's whining a bit ironic:

Maybe it's just me, but a 30 year natural monopoly gatekeeper that just got done lobbying to kill net neutrality rules (designed to ensure AT&T couldn't abuse its broadband monopoly) pivoting unironically to complaining about unfair treatment is... kind of funny?

The truth is that while Stankey tries to blame Amazon for its predicament, most of AT&T's wounds are self-inflicted. Despite the company getting a $42 billion tax break from the Trump administration in exchange for doing less than nothing, and despite billions more in Trump administration regulatory favors designed to protect AT&T's dominance (like neutering the FCC from within or killing broadband privacy rules), and despite spending $150 billion on megamergers to dominate the sector... AT&T's still losing pay TV subscribers hand over fist.

Why? One, because AT&T's streaming market entry strategy was such a confusing branding mess, it wound up confusing even the company's own employees. Two, because the bullying strategies that work in the uncompetitive broadband sector, don't work in a sector with actual competition, and a need for innovation and collaboration. Three, because AT&T spent $150 billion on mergers, then tried to extract that money from its customers in the form of rate hikes, seemingly oblivious that the entire point of "cord cutting" and streaming for the end users is greater flexibility at lower costs.

The lion's share of AT&T's troubles right now are self-inflicted, yet a natural monopoly whining about being treated unfairly does at least bring some much needed entertainment value during these dark times.

Filed Under: competition, gatekeeper, hbo max, john stankey, streaming, streaming tv
Companies: amazon, at&t

Old School TV Gatekeepers (AT&T, Comcast), Struggle With Modern Streaming Gatekeepers (Amazon, Roku)

from the meet-the-new-boss... dept

In years past, incumbent broadband and television giants like Comcast and AT&T enjoyed life from a comfortable position of dominance. If you want to subscribe to broadband, such companies are often your only option. If you wanted to subscribe to television service, you were required to rent a locked down, highly proprietary cable box courtesy of the industry's cable hardware monopoly. Want to have your cable channel in a conspicuous position in the lineup? You could also expect headaches.

As such, it's interesting to watch how these giants of yesterday are now struggling to adapt to a new era in which their interests are not the end all, be all of negotiations.

As AT&T tries to reverse the tide of TV customer defections, it has turned to the launch of yet another streaming service: HBO Max. But the company's efforts haven't gone as planned, with the service unavailable on two of the most dominant TV streaming hardware platforms (Roku and Amazon) due to contract disputes. AT&T, a government pampered giant that traditionally enjoys playing the role of the politically powerful bully (remember net neutrality?), hasn't been able to break this logjam despite HBO Max having launched a month ago:

"But streaming is an entirely new battlefield, with platforms like Roku and Fire TV becoming the main distributors. And legacy media companies like WarnerMedia and Disney are streaming newcomers with everyone seeking to challenge Netflix. None of the three companies would comment on the state of talks or say what the current impasse is over. Analysts agree that it probably harms HBO Max as it seeks to find its footing more than Roku and Amazon, which have built their businesses and subscriber bases over the past few years."

Comcast, despite all of its money, political influence, and power, is running into the same problem. The company's upcoming new streaming service, Peacock, also won't be launching on Roku (39% market share) or Amazon (30% market share) streaming hardware. It's a disadvantaged position AT&T and Comcast certainly aren't quite used to:

"Combined, Roku and Amazon have around 70 percent of the streaming TV-specific hardware market. Both companies have leveraged their market dominance to try to secure distribution deals on terms that are favorable to them. Those deals include data-sharing agreements and the right to sell subscriptions to streaming services to viewers natively through Roku and Amazon’s operating system, according to individuals familiar with the matter."

There are different negotiations hangups for both AT&T and Verizon. The AT&T and Roku standoff purportedly centers around AT&T being unwilling to let Roku customers who've already paid for HBO via Roku (who gets a cut) access AT&T's HBO Max app (read: AT&T doesn't want middlemen getting a cut). The Roku and Comcast standoff, in contrast, allegedly is focused on a dispute over advertising and access to viewer tracking data. In both instances, dominant monopolists are now being forced to compromise as they attempt to pivot to disruption... and at least so far, it's not going particularly well.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, gatekeepers, streaming, tv
Companies: amazon, at&t, comcast, roku