New York Post - 13.03.2020

New York Post, Friday, March 13, 2020

nypost.com

Is Blas’ New York

Truly Corona-Ready?

POSTOPINION

T

his month, the Supreme Court

hears oral arguments in Google

v. Oracle — widely dubbed

“the copyright case of the cen-

tury.” Let’s hope the ­Supremes stop

Google in its tracks.

Google is offering a dangerous

legal argument that, if left stand-

ing, would directly abet China’s

­relentless theft of American intel-

lectual property.

The facts are wonky, so bear with

me. In 2010, the tech firm ­Oracle

sounded the alarm that Google cop-

ied its Java software application-

program interfaces (API) for Goo-

gle’s Android smartphone without a

license. In the litigation that fol-

lowed, a federal appellate court

twice ruled for Oracle, rejecting

Google’s main defense that it made

“fair use” of Oracle’s code.

Google argues that API ought to

not be copyrightable, because

­innovation would be ­unduly sti-

fled. But that’s exactly backward: It

is allowing conglomerates to pilfer

code that would stifle innovation.

Google’s definition of “fair use” is

so broad, it would allow the excep-

tion to swallow the rule — which is

aimed at protecting the hard work

of others.

As Team Trump argues in its

friend-of-the-court brief, Google

simply “copied lines of code verba-

tim from a rival software platform,

inserted them into a competing, in-

compatible platform and then mar-

keted the infringing product.”

To allow such shamelessness

would diminish entrepreneurs’ in-

centives to innovate and take risks

— and imperil venture-capital

funding that would otherwise flow

to tech startups. Who would invest

in a niche startup knowing a firm

like Google could simply take the

resulting code gratis?

“The goal of copyright,” as the

Supremes have previously said, is

“to promote sciences and the arts.”

Our Founders took the promotion

of arts and sciences so seriously,

they wrote copyright protection

right into the US Constitution.

They would have considered the

notion that a software company

could be forced to give away its

creative work both unjust and

­unproductive.

The acute domestic harms aside,

it is in the international arena

where a pro-Google ruling could

be most destructive. Specifically,

Google’s legal argument would

frustrate the Trump administra-

tion’s ongoing trade negotiations

with China and exacerbate the

­already serious threat of Chinese

intellectual-property theft.

Communist China’s long and

­inglorious history of stealing ideas

was a focal point for the Trump

­administration’s recently com-

pleted “phase one” trade deal with

the Beijing regime.

Tackling the problem was long

overdue: Estimates are that Chi-

nese intellectual-property theft

costs the United States roughly

$225 billion to $600 billion every

year. Only recently has China

­begun to earnestly crack down.

As the conservative Hudson

­Institute sharply argues in its own

friend-of-the-court brief, this geo-

political context makes Google’s

legal position profoundly ill-timed

and worrisome.

Bestowing legal legitimacy upon

Google’s extraordinarily lenient

proposed standards for using

copyrighted software, Hudson

­argues, would “make it extremely

difficult to police international

theft” of intellectual property. Rul-

ing in favor of such a freewheeling

“fair-use” copyright “exception,” as

Google argues, would therefore

not merely throw software innova-

tion to ruin; it would curtail the

Trump administration’s fresh, and

thus far promising, efforts to force

China to provide greater intellec-

tual-property protection.

As the Hudson Institute notes,

Google’s argument actually “pro-

vides a roadmap” for China to “cir-

cumvent US international copyright

protection for computer code.” And

it would provide that roadmap just

as President Trump’s efforts to bring

Beijing to heel have begun.

If Google were to prevail in the

copyright case of the century, it

would cause tremendous uncer-

tainty for the software industry,

hinder creativity and entrepre-

neurship — and thwart the nation’s

efforts to counter a powerful and

malicious geopolitical foe’s whole-

sale theft of American ideas. The

justices must bar such a result.

Josh Hammer is a syndicated col-

umnist and of counsel at First Liberty

Institute. Twitter: @Josh_Hammer

google vs. america

Josh Hammer

M

ayor de Blasio and his public-health team have been holding

regular briefings on the coronavirus crisis in New York City,

­detailing the extent of its transmission, updating the public on the

progression of the disease in infected persons and offering guide-

lines for avoiding infection.

All good work, but there are signs that the city is less prepared for a mass

outbreak than officials suggest. De Blasio and Health Commissioner Oxi-

ris Barbot have stressed that though the coronavirus is certainly conta-

gious, the mechanics of transmission are relatively limited.

“The virus can only transmit when bodily fluid, such as through a sneeze,

cough or spit, is transferred from a person who has the virus, directly into

another person,” de Blasio stated in a news release. “Disease detectives

have determined that the virus does

not survive for more than two or

three minutes in open air.”

The claim that coronavirus dies

quickly upon exposure to the

­atmosphere is striking; it also

seems to contradict information

elsewhere. The World Health

­Organization says that the novel

coronavirus appears to behave sim-

ilarly to related viruses and “may

persist on surfaces for a few hours

or up to several days.” A ­recent arti-

cle in the Journal of Hospital Infec-

tion suggests that, depending on

the surface material, it can remain

infectious for up to nine days.

If coronavirus loses its potency

after two or three minutes, then

many intensive practices and pre-

cautions are unnecessary, such as

constant deep cleaning of buses

and subways. Closing schools for

24 hours for sterilization after a

local infection — as Gov. Cuomo

has announced he would do —

would also be unnecessary.

Asked how the Department of

Health had concluded that the

­virus dies quickly in the open air,

the mayor was unpersuasive.

“There are studies, there are aca-

demic studies, there are global

and national organizations pro-

viding the information they have,”

he said. “But you know, the old

saying, God bless the child who’s

got his own or her own... All

­information is valuable, but the

information that we’re gleaning

from our own direct experience is

the most valuable to us.”

When pressed, Barbot acknowl-

edged that the finding is hypo-

thetical. “This is a novel virus that

we’re still learning a lot about,”

she said. Since the virus’ surface-

contamination properties remain

in dispute, the city would have

been better off not presenting its

own findings as fact. That would

make its broader instructions less

contradictory.

More troubling is the insistence

that New York’s hospital system is

fully capable of handling a wide-

spread outbreak, which in ­extreme

cases can cause total respiratory

failure and necessitate ­intubation.

De Blasio and Dr. Mitchell Katz,

the head of NYC Health + Hospi-

tals, the largest public-health net-

work in the country, have said

­repeatedly that the hospital system

has “1,200 beds that can be

brought online immediately,” as a

reserve stock.

As a public-health emergency,

coronavirus is a logistical crisis

about capacity. Most people who

get infected, perhaps 80 percent,

are asymptomatic or suffer only

lightly. Of the remainder, a fraction

become seriously ill and require

the use of a ventilator.

The disease appears to be spread-

ing exponentially, with the total

number of new cases outside China

increasing by a factor of 10 every 14

to 16 days. Assuming this trend

holds, then the 20 or so cases we see

in Gotham now could reach 2,000

by mid-April, 200,000 by mid-May

and even 2 million by June.

New York City’s entire hospital

system has about 26,000 beds. If

10 percent of the city’s population

becomes infected, and only 5 per-

cent of those 850,000 people

­become seriously ill, that would

still require 42,500 hospital beds

— and nursing staff to tend to the

patients, along with ventilators

and other equipment.

Katz offered an optimistic take on

that prospect: “Our hospitals have

tents that would allow us to turn a

parking lot into an intensive-care

unit.” And he reiterated the rela-

tively small share of patients who

will require intensive care.

It’s probably true that, even if 2

million New Yorkers are infected

by June, and only 5 percent —

100,000 — need to be intubated,

that it wouldn’t happen all at once.

Still, the image of intensive-care

parking lots is less than encourag-

ing for anxious New Yorkers.

Seth Barron is associate editor of

City Journal, from which this col-

umn was adapted.

Twitter: @SethBarronNYC

SETH

BARRON

‘

The image of intensive-care parking

lots is less than encouraging.

’