4 ms·

> Google then created an implementation of (a part of) the spec, and didn't reach a licensing agreement with Sun If Google used Apache Harmony, the ones imple

by Oletros 11y ago

> Google then created an implementation of (a part of) the spec, and didn't reach a licensing agreement with Sun If Google used Apache Harmony, the ones implementing it where Apache Foundation. Why Oracle didn't sue Apache? > hat is not to say that what they did wasn't legal, but that is why what they did mattered to Sun (and then Oracle) enough to sue them Sun didn't sue Google in the 5 years Google used Android > First, it applies only to language-level APIs; not REST protocols, recently also referred to as APIs. This is not open to interpretation. Web "APIs" are not copyrightable for completely other reasons, reasons which are impossible (as much as anything in law is impossible) to argue against. And exactly why is different? The ruling talks about API and API's has nothing to do with being a language level API or a "web API". > Second, the court ruled that some of Google's argument regarding the copyrightability of APIs are really fair use arguments" As far as I know, the appeal court ruled that the fair use question must be decided in the forthcoming case, nothing more. As any other copyright case > To sum up the legal issue, while it has been in Google's best interest to cause panic, the ruling does not apply to any other player but Google because: >1. It only applies to language-level APIs, not web APIs. You have to make your case why only applies to lkevel language API's > 2. It is protected by the interoperability fair-use defense, even if Google's particular use isn't. No, it has to go to court so yes, any player must be concerned

pron 11y ago
> Why Oracle didn't sue Apache? Simple: because they didn't have the motivation (see point (I)). Their goal wasn't to copyright APIs (that just was one of the many tactics used in court, and the one that just happened to win), but to get their share of Android. Suing Apache wouldn't have helped their goal in the least. Also, while not relevant to the question, I will note that even if APIs are copyrighted, Harmony has a much stronger fair-use defense than Android: 1. It was done for the purpose of interoperability and 2. it was not intended to make a profit. Each of these is a fair use defense alone, and certainly together, but neither is true for Android (although the first might be partially true). > Sun didn't sue Google in the 5 years Google used Android Because they didn't have the resources and the inclination, as the company was already in a downward spiral and such a lawsuit could only have hurt them at the time. Google, however, fully expected them to. > The ruling talks about API and API's has nothing to do with being a language level API or a "web API". That's only because the term "API" -- until very recently -- was only used to describe language-level API, while what today is known as a web API has always been called a protocol, so don't let the recent overloading of the term confuse you. More to the point, the reason copyright may apply to APIs but certainly not to protocols is because copyright law is not only concerned with the intent, abstraction, or use of the work, but also with its form. This why other IP protections (like patents) exist, to cover works whose form does not match those covered by copyright. In particular, copyright requires a fixed representation (in text, image, recording etc.). So, for example, if I tell you a story, the story isn't copyrighted. But if I write it down -- or even record it -- then the text of the story or the recording is copyrighted. It doesn't matter that the purpose in all three cases was the same: to convey a story (once that fixed form is copyrighted, the protection may extend to non-exact reproductions, but that original fixed-form must exist). While a protocol may be described in a text and that text is copyrighted, the described protocol itself cannot be, because it does not have a fixed representation in text (a completely different text could describe the same protocol). A language API does have a fixed form. > the appeal court ruled that the fair use question must be decided in the forthcoming case, nothing more. As any other copyright case Yes, but that was the point. Google made some arguments that they believed would make APIs non-copyrightable. The court ruled that those arguments are fair-use arguments which are not relevant to the question of copyrightability, but may be used as a defense once APIs are copyrighted. > No, it has to go to court so yes, any player must be concerned Quite the opposite. It is the copyright holder who has to sue you. Any company would sue you if they believe they have a case, and you would still need to defend yourself in court when they do. The question of API copyrightability had never been decided, so even before the ruling there was a good chance you'd be sued, and you'd still need to defend yourself. Now, it is true that a ruling against API copyrightability would have removed this threat (which had existed even prior to this case), but now your position is not much different than before, only that except making two arguments (as Google did) -- that API are not copyrightable and if they are, you've made fair use of them -- you only have one: fair use.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > That's only because the term "API" -- until very recently -- was only used to describe language-level API, while what today is known as a web API has always been called a protocol, so don't let the recent overloading of the term confuse you. A protocol is not the same as an API and I don't hink that the, for example, Google Maps interface is a protocol > More to the point, the reason copyright may apply to APIs but certainly not to protocols is because copyright law is not only concerned with the intent, abstraction, or use of the work, but also with its form. This why other IP protections (like patents) exist, to cover works whose form does not match those covered by copyright. But a web API is not a protocol and a communication protocol is not what is used to call Google Maps, beeminder or other web applications. > Yes, but that was the point. Google made some arguments that they believed would make APIs non-copyrightable. The court ruled that those arguments are fair-use arguments which are not relevant to the question of copyrightability, but may be used as a defense once APIs are copyrighted. NO, the appeal ruling had nothing to do with Google arguments about fair use. If there is a new trial to rule about the fair use is because in the original trial, the ruling about fair use was stalled by the jury and Judge Alsup stated that API's can't be copyrighted. And the Appeal court didn't wanted to rule about fair use > Quite the opposite. It is the copyright holder who has to sue you. Yes, but fair use is not automatically granted, so, you're in danger to be sued by the copyright holder. Microsoft can sue WINE developers or Amazon can sue anyone developing a clone of the AWS API.
  - pron 11y ago
    > A protocol is not the same as an API and I don't hink that the, for example, Google Maps interface is a protocol However you want to call it, unlike a "proper" API, it is not of the right form to be copyrighted, regardless of the ruling pertaining to "proper" APIs. > NO, the appeal ruling had nothing to do with Google arguments about fair use. The court didn't rule on fair use, but it did address it. They said that now that it has been clarified that interoperability is not relevant to the copyrightability analysis, it may still play a role in connection with fair use. Namely, that Google interoperability argument isn't an argument against copyright, but rather a fair-use defense, which should be argued separately (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-copyright.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-...). > Yes, but fair use is not automatically granted, so, you're in danger to be sued by the copyright holder That danger had existed even before the court case; the ruling simply did not lift it. Fair use is granted neither automatically nor in court. It is a defense to be used if you are sued.

by Oletros 11y ago

pron 11y ago

> Why Oracle didn't sue Apache? Simple: because they didn't have the motivation (see point (I)). Their goal wasn't to copyright APIs (that just was one of the many tactics used in court, and the one that just happened to win), but to get their share of Android. Suing Apache wouldn't have helped their goal in the least. Also, while not relevant to the question, I will note that even if APIs are copyrighted, Harmony has a much stronger fair-use defense than Android: 1. It was done for the purpose of interoperability and 2. it was not intended to make a profit. Each of these is a fair use defense alone, and certainly together, but neither is true for Android (although the first might be partially true). > Sun didn't sue Google in the 5 years Google used Android Because they didn't have the resources and the inclination, as the company was already in a downward spiral and such a lawsuit could only have hurt them at the time. Google, however, fully expected them to. > The ruling talks about API and API's has nothing to do with being a language level API or a "web API". That's only because the term "API" -- until very recently -- was only used to describe language-level API, while what today is known as a web API has always been called a protocol, so don't let the recent overloading of the term confuse you. More to the point, the reason copyright may apply to APIs but certainly not to protocols is because copyright law is not only concerned with the intent, abstraction, or use of the work, but also with its form. This why other IP protections (like patents) exist, to cover works whose form does not match those covered by copyright. In particular, copyright requires a fixed representation (in text, image, recording etc.). So, for example, if I tell you a story, the story isn't copyrighted. But if I write it down -- or even record it -- then the text of the story or the recording is copyrighted. It doesn't matter that the purpose in all three cases was the same: to convey a story (once that fixed form is copyrighted, the protection may extend to non-exact reproductions, but that original fixed-form must exist). While a protocol may be described in a text and that text is copyrighted, the described protocol itself cannot be, because it does not have a fixed representation in text (a completely different text could describe the same protocol). A language API does have a fixed form. > the appeal court ruled that the fair use question must be decided in the forthcoming case, nothing more. As any other copyright case Yes, but that was the point. Google made some arguments that they believed would make APIs non-copyrightable. The court ruled that those arguments are fair-use arguments which are not relevant to the question of copyrightability, but may be used as a defense once APIs are copyrighted. > No, it has to go to court so yes, any player must be concerned Quite the opposite. It is the copyright holder who has to sue you. Any company would sue you if they believe they have a case, and you would still need to defend yourself in court when they do. The question of API copyrightability had never been decided, so even before the ruling there was a good chance you'd be sued, and you'd still need to defend yourself. Now, it is true that a ruling against API copyrightability would have removed this threat (which had existed even prior to this case), but now your position is not much different than before, only that except making two arguments (as Google did) -- that API are not copyrightable and if they are, you've made fair use of them -- you only have one: fair use.

Oletros 11y ago
> That's only because the term "API" -- until very recently -- was only used to describe language-level API, while what today is known as a web API has always been called a protocol, so don't let the recent overloading of the term confuse you. A protocol is not the same as an API and I don't hink that the, for example, Google Maps interface is a protocol > More to the point, the reason copyright may apply to APIs but certainly not to protocols is because copyright law is not only concerned with the intent, abstraction, or use of the work, but also with its form. This why other IP protections (like patents) exist, to cover works whose form does not match those covered by copyright. But a web API is not a protocol and a communication protocol is not what is used to call Google Maps, beeminder or other web applications. > Yes, but that was the point. Google made some arguments that they believed would make APIs non-copyrightable. The court ruled that those arguments are fair-use arguments which are not relevant to the question of copyrightability, but may be used as a defense once APIs are copyrighted. NO, the appeal ruling had nothing to do with Google arguments about fair use. If there is a new trial to rule about the fair use is because in the original trial, the ruling about fair use was stalled by the jury and Judge Alsup stated that API's can't be copyrighted. And the Appeal court didn't wanted to rule about fair use > Quite the opposite. It is the copyright holder who has to sue you. Yes, but fair use is not automatically granted, so, you're in danger to be sued by the copyright holder. Microsoft can sue WINE developers or Amazon can sue anyone developing a clone of the AWS API.
- pron 11y ago
  > A protocol is not the same as an API and I don't hink that the, for example, Google Maps interface is a protocol However you want to call it, unlike a "proper" API, it is not of the right form to be copyrighted, regardless of the ruling pertaining to "proper" APIs. > NO, the appeal ruling had nothing to do with Google arguments about fair use. The court didn't rule on fair use, but it did address it. They said that now that it has been clarified that interoperability is not relevant to the copyrightability analysis, it may still play a role in connection with fair use. Namely, that Google interoperability argument isn't an argument against copyright, but rather a fair-use defense, which should be argued separately (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-copyright.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-...). > Yes, but fair use is not automatically granted, so, you're in danger to be sued by the copyright holder That danger had existed even before the court case; the ruling simply did not lift it. Fair use is granted neither automatically nor in court. It is a defense to be used if you are sued.