3 ms·

If I remember correctly, the appeals court did not rule that APIs are copyrighted, only that they might be copyrightable in some cases. Judge Alsup had ruled th

If I remember correctly, the appeals court did not rule that APIs are copyrighted, only that they might be copyrightable in some cases. Judge Alsup had ruled that they couldn't be copyrighted; that if you used the four-factor test, you would always always come to the "outside copyright protection" answer in all cases.

zerocrates 10y ago
The Federal Circuit didn't remand on the question of copyrightability, it reversed. In other words, it explicitly held that the Java APIs at issue in the case were entitled to copyright protection, not merely that an API could be.
- deciplex 10y ago
  I don't think you're necessarily contradicting maxlybbert, if the Federal Circuit only reversed the lower court on the question of the Java API in particular.
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  I had to dig up the ruling ( https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021.opinion.5-7-2014.1.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021... ). It looks like my memory was faulty: "Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement finding as to the 37 Java packages. Because the jury deadlocked on fair use, we remand for further consideration of Google’s fair use defense in light of this decision" (pg. 5).
zmmmmm 10y ago
Isn't such uncertainty by itself a death sentence for a vast range users relying on incorporation of APIs into their software? Can open source projects and small developers employ lawyers to decide if their particular use is "fair"? It seems to me that anything other than an extremely clear cut decision is going to be a disaster for the software industry here.
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  I certainly prefer a simple rule so that I don't need to ask an attorney whether a particular API is copyrighted before I start working. But I found the original article misleading in a few aspects, and wanted to clarify things before the discussion turned silly over misunderstandings. It's also true that courts are expected to come to the right conclusion for the right reason. If a company spent years telling people they were free to use some particular API, then sued them for doing so, it would be important to distinguish between a case where the API isn't copyrightable and a case where the API is copyrightable but that people had permission to create derivative works based on that API. For some reason, many people are unable to make that distinction when talking about things around the water cooler.

zerocrates 10y ago

The Federal Circuit didn't remand on the question of copyrightability, it reversed. In other words, it explicitly held that the Java APIs at issue in the case were entitled to copyright protection, not merely that an API could be.

deciplex 10y ago
I don't think you're necessarily contradicting maxlybbert, if the Federal Circuit only reversed the lower court on the question of the Java API in particular.
maxlybbert 10y ago
I had to dig up the ruling ( https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021.opinion.5-7-2014.1.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021... ). It looks like my memory was faulty: "Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement finding as to the 37 Java packages. Because the jury deadlocked on fair use, we remand for further consideration of Google’s fair use defense in light of this decision" (pg. 5).

zmmmmm 10y ago

Isn't such uncertainty by itself a death sentence for a vast range users relying on incorporation of APIs into their software? Can open source projects and small developers employ lawyers to decide if their particular use is "fair"? It seems to me that anything other than an extremely clear cut decision is going to be a disaster for the software industry here.

maxlybbert 10y ago
I certainly prefer a simple rule so that I don't need to ask an attorney whether a particular API is copyrighted before I start working. But I found the original article misleading in a few aspects, and wanted to clarify things before the discussion turned silly over misunderstandings. It's also true that courts are expected to come to the right conclusion for the right reason. If a company spent years telling people they were free to use some particular API, then sued them for doing so, it would be important to distinguish between a case where the API isn't copyrightable and a case where the API is copyrightable but that people had permission to create derivative works based on that API. For some reason, many people are unable to make that distinction when talking about things around the water cooler.