4 ms·

So far APIs cannot be copyrighted. There have been lawsuits over APIs but no decision that protects APIs from being used by other people and companies. GNU/Lin

So far APIs cannot be copyrighted. There have been lawsuits over APIs but no decision that protects APIs from being used by other people and companies. GNU/Linux for example uses Unix APIs and Mac OSX uses Unix APIs, so if APIs are copyrighted then they would be sued for using the Unix APIs without permission. Then they would have to remove Unix APIs and lose Unix compatibility. Sun went after Microsoft and others over Java IP before Oracle bought them out. Sun used a lot of money on lawsuits and ended up losing money to the point that Oracle bought them out. This is the same as when SCO was suing over GNU/Linux using Unix source code. It usually doesn't work and costs more in court costs than any settlement or rewards.

jrochkind1 11y ago
> So far APIs cannot be copyrighted. There have been lawsuits over APIs but no decision that protects APIs from being used by other people and companies. So, are you not familiar with the very very pertinent to this _particular_ platform recent case of Oracle v. Google? Cause, yeah, that did that. It's a disaster.
- orionblastar 11y ago
  I was not aware that Oracle won. Can Google appeal it?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Google appealed to the Supreme Court. They declined to hear the case.
tzs 11y ago
> So far APIs cannot be copyrighted. There have been lawsuits over APIs but no decision that protects APIs from being used by other people and companies. What about the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.? [1] [1] http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/content/oracle-america-inc-v-google-inc-opinion http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/content/oracle-america-inc-v-go...
- orionblastar 11y ago
  The way I read it, it is not just the APIs but Google copied source code from Java for use in Android: With respect to the 37 packages at issue, “Google believed Java application programmers would want to find the same 37 sets of functionalities in the new Android system callable by the same names as used in Java.” Id. To achieve this result, Google copied the declaring source code from the 37 Java API packages verbatim, inserting ORACLE AMERICA, INC. v. GOOGLE INC. 11 that code into parts of its Android software. In doing so, Google copied the elaborately organized taxonomy of all the names of methods, classes, interfaces, and packages— the “overall system of organized names—covering 37 packages, with over six hundred classes, with over six thousand methods.” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 999. The parties and district court referred to this taxonomy of expressions as the “structure, sequence, and organization” or “SSO” of the 37 packages. It is undisputed, however, that Google wrote its own implementing code, except with respect to: (1) the rangeCheck function, which consisted of nine lines of code; and (2) eight decompiled security files.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > "Google copied the declaring source code..." That is, Google copied the API. That's the declarations. That includes the package, class, and method names (and signatures) - that's what an API is in Java.
  - twoodfin 11y ago
    That's how I read this case as well. I've always been confused by the "API copyright" panic: If Google hadn't copied Oracle's source files (albeit interface-only source files) nearly verbatim, there would have been no liability. You're free to reproduce an API to provide to your clients; you're not free to take the interface files I wrote to provide the API, edit them a bit, and ship them as your product. If I'm getting this wrong, I'd appreciate an explanation why.
    - jonas21 11y ago
      There's no other way to "reproduce an API" in Java than to copy the names of methods, classes, interfaces, and packages verbatim. Otherwise, it would not be a compatible API.
phonon 11y ago
Ummm... "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages at issue are entitled to copyright protection. We therefore reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement verdict. Because the jury hung on fair use, we remand Google’s fair use defense for further proceedings consistent with this decision. " https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/15772 https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/15772
- simoncion 11y ago
  And just to save others some time, "declaring code" is defined in this footnote: 'Every package consists of two types of source code— what the parties call (1)declaring code; and (2) implementing code. Declaring code is the expression that identifies the prewritten function and is sometimes referred to as the "declaration" or "header." As the district court explained, the "main point is that this header line of code introduces the method body and specifies very precisely the inputs, name and other functionality." Id. at 979-80. The expressions used by the programmer from the declaring code command the computer to execute the associated implementing code, which gives the computer the step-by-step instructions for carrying out the declared function.'

jrochkind1 11y ago

> So far APIs cannot be copyrighted. There have been lawsuits over APIs but no decision that protects APIs from being used by other people and companies. So, are you not familiar with the very very pertinent to this _particular_ platform recent case of Oracle v. Google? Cause, yeah, that did that. It's a disaster.

orionblastar 11y ago
I was not aware that Oracle won. Can Google appeal it?
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Google appealed to the Supreme Court. They declined to hear the case.

tzs 11y ago

> So far APIs cannot be copyrighted. There have been lawsuits over APIs but no decision that protects APIs from being used by other people and companies. What about the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.? [1] [1] http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/content/oracle-america-inc-v-google-inc-opinion http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/content/oracle-america-inc-v-go...

orionblastar 11y ago
The way I read it, it is not just the APIs but Google copied source code from Java for use in Android: With respect to the 37 packages at issue, “Google believed Java application programmers would want to find the same 37 sets of functionalities in the new Android system callable by the same names as used in Java.” Id. To achieve this result, Google copied the declaring source code from the 37 Java API packages verbatim, inserting ORACLE AMERICA, INC. v. GOOGLE INC. 11 that code into parts of its Android software. In doing so, Google copied the elaborately organized taxonomy of all the names of methods, classes, interfaces, and packages— the “overall system of organized names—covering 37 packages, with over six hundred classes, with over six thousand methods.” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 999. The parties and district court referred to this taxonomy of expressions as the “structure, sequence, and organization” or “SSO” of the 37 packages. It is undisputed, however, that Google wrote its own implementing code, except with respect to: (1) the rangeCheck function, which consisted of nine lines of code; and (2) eight decompiled security files.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > "Google copied the declaring source code..." That is, Google copied the API. That's the declarations. That includes the package, class, and method names (and signatures) - that's what an API is in Java.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  That's how I read this case as well. I've always been confused by the "API copyright" panic: If Google hadn't copied Oracle's source files (albeit interface-only source files) nearly verbatim, there would have been no liability. You're free to reproduce an API to provide to your clients; you're not free to take the interface files I wrote to provide the API, edit them a bit, and ship them as your product. If I'm getting this wrong, I'd appreciate an explanation why.
  - jonas21 11y ago
    There's no other way to "reproduce an API" in Java than to copy the names of methods, classes, interfaces, and packages verbatim. Otherwise, it would not be a compatible API.

phonon 11y ago

Ummm... "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages at issue are entitled to copyright protection. We therefore reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement verdict. Because the jury hung on fair use, we remand Google’s fair use defense for further proceedings consistent with this decision. " https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/15772 https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/15772

simoncion 11y ago
And just to save others some time, "declaring code" is defined in this footnote: 'Every package consists of two types of source code— what the parties call (1)declaring code; and (2) implementing code. Declaring code is the expression that identifies the prewritten function and is sometimes referred to as the "declaration" or "header." As the district court explained, the "main point is that this header line of code introduces the method body and specifies very precisely the inputs, name and other functionality." Id. at 979-80. The expressions used by the programmer from the declaring code command the computer to execute the associated implementing code, which gives the computer the step-by-step instructions for carrying out the declared function.'