3 ms·

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 believ

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.
  - wvenable 11y ago
    The numbers in the telephone book are not copyright-able. You are perfectly able to produce a book of phone numbers in the same order and distribute it. However, if you were to photocopy an existing telephone book then you would be violating copyright. Google did not produce their own compatible files containing the list of methods, classes, and interfaces. They copied Oracle's files.
    - jonas21 11y ago
      > Google did not produce their own compatible files containing the list of methods, classes, and interfaces No, that's exactly what Google did. Google didn't copy any of Oracle's files -- except for 9 lines of code in rangeCheck and a few tests, none of which are central to the case.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

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.
- wvenable 11y ago
  The numbers in the telephone book are not copyright-able. You are perfectly able to produce a book of phone numbers in the same order and distribute it. However, if you were to photocopy an existing telephone book then you would be violating copyright. Google did not produce their own compatible files containing the list of methods, classes, and interfaces. They copied Oracle's files.
  - jonas21 11y ago
    > Google did not produce their own compatible files containing the list of methods, classes, and interfaces No, that's exactly what Google did. Google didn't copy any of Oracle's files -- except for 9 lines of code in rangeCheck and a few tests, none of which are central to the case.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]