5 ms·

Let's say Google loses this case. What are the implications for my free, open source software? And my closed source commercial software?

coldpie 10y ago
It's unclear, since this case is basically making all software illegal in retrospect. Browsers freely implement each others' APIs; SQL servers all use the same API developed by a myriad of entities; the Unix API has been copied over and over and it's impossible to determine ownership. This was a really, really, really bad decision, and it will get worse if Google loses the fair use case. If you thought software patents were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.
throwawaykf05 10y ago
IANAL, but my take: Are you re-implementing anybody else's API without their permission? If not, this has absolutely no bearing on you. Hopefully a real lawyer can shed more light.
sangnoir 10y ago
> What are the implications for my free, open source software? And my closed source commercial software? Software that implements other party's APIs might be obligated to agree to a licensing agreement - projects like Wine, Samba and various 3rd-party emulators. Ironically, Microsoft's discontinued, Android-compatible project Astoria would be exposed (to both Google and Oracle) - Microsoft submitted an amicus in the first Oracle v Google case supporting Oracle's cause. I am not sure if Xamarin- and Cordova-/Phonegap-type projects would be subject to Apple's lawsuits. I also suspect web-APIs might also become risky, making it possibly for Amazon to sue you for providing AWS-compatible APIs[1] for example Disclamer: I am not a lawyer, this is just my layman's perspective. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_(software)
- sandGorgon 10y ago
  Exactly. And I'm absolutely expecting an AWS lawsuit in the next couple of years.
- coldpie 10y ago
  > Software that implements other party's APIs might be obligated to agree to a licensing agreement - projects like Wine, Samba and various 3rd-party emulators. It's far, far larger than that. Netscape implemented the Blink tag first and other browsers followed suit. Now Netscape (or whoever owns that copyright) can sue all browsers that implement the Blink tag.

coldpie 10y ago

It's unclear, since this case is basically making all software illegal in retrospect. Browsers freely implement each others' APIs; SQL servers all use the same API developed by a myriad of entities; the Unix API has been copied over and over and it's impossible to determine ownership. This was a really, really, really bad decision, and it will get worse if Google loses the fair use case. If you thought software patents were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

throwawaykf05 10y ago

IANAL, but my take: Are you re-implementing anybody else's API without their permission? If not, this has absolutely no bearing on you. Hopefully a real lawyer can shed more light.

sangnoir 10y ago

> What are the implications for my free, open source software? And my closed source commercial software? Software that implements other party's APIs might be obligated to agree to a licensing agreement - projects like Wine, Samba and various 3rd-party emulators. Ironically, Microsoft's discontinued, Android-compatible project Astoria would be exposed (to both Google and Oracle) - Microsoft submitted an amicus in the first Oracle v Google case supporting Oracle's cause. I am not sure if Xamarin- and Cordova-/Phonegap-type projects would be subject to Apple's lawsuits. I also suspect web-APIs might also become risky, making it possibly for Amazon to sue you for providing AWS-compatible APIs[1] for example Disclamer: I am not a lawyer, this is just my layman's perspective. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_(software)

sandGorgon 10y ago
Exactly. And I'm absolutely expecting an AWS lawsuit in the next couple of years.
coldpie 10y ago
> Software that implements other party's APIs might be obligated to agree to a licensing agreement - projects like Wine, Samba and various 3rd-party emulators. It's far, far larger than that. Netscape implemented the Blink tag first and other browsers followed suit. Now Netscape (or whoever owns that copyright) can sue all browsers that implement the Blink tag.