4 ms·

This is possibly my best-case scenario. APIs are copywriteable (so says the Supreme Court), and this seems reasonable, since some APIs really are very good and

This is possibly my best-case scenario. APIs are copywriteable (so says the Supreme Court), and this seems reasonable, since some APIs really are very good and treating them like an artistic work has benefits. But implementing them is fair use, preserving the utility of APIs for compatibility. Great news!

halo 10y ago
If other countries follow USSC's lead in declaring APIs as copyrightable, many of which have far looser fair use rights than the US, then this could create a lot of headaches, especially since this seems like a very loose interpretation of the US's already loose fair-use laws.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The USSC hasn't ruled on copyrightability (they still might in this case, and it's anyone's guess how they would.)
  - oceanswave 10y ago
    The proper acronym is SCOTUS.
pfg 10y ago
> APIs are copywriteable (so says the Supreme Court) My understanding is that they refused to hear the case at the time. Is that, legally speaking, the same thing as agreeing with the circuit court, or could they have just refused to hear the case for some other reason (e.g. because they wanted to see the ruling on fair use first)?
- rincebrain 10y ago
  It is not the same as agreeing with the lower court - AIUI if they heard it and ruled, the scope of the decision for purposes of precedent would be* "every court" (though not necessarily every case), while declining to hear it does not change the scope or outcome of the prior ruling. * - as with everything in the legal system, there are exceptions and fuzzy lines, and IANAL.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> APIs are copywriteable (so says the Supreme Court) That decision was not made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not heard this case...yet.
DannyBee 10y ago
The supreme court's refusal to hear a case is explicitly not a decision on the merits :)
magicalist 10y ago
> APIs are copywriteable (so says the Supreme Court) The Supreme Court denying cert is not an endorsement of a ruling. No precedent is set. They could completely disagree with the lower court's ruling but not take the case for any number of reasons: there's no split between circuits, so they want to let other opinions develop before taking on a subject, they don't believe the case details are a good test case for the subject (something the FSF argued was the case for this suit), etc. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  They also may not have taken the case because it was an interlocutory appeal, and the Supreme Court has a strong bias toward taking appeals of final judgements and avoiding interlocutory appeals unless, in addition to a good reason to take the case, there's also a good reason not to let it go to final judgement before taking it. It's still possible that the Supreme Court could take this case and Oracle might go back to losing on copyrightability rendering fair use moot.
ghaff 10y ago
The challenge is that, taking away what most of us wanted the ultimate result to be, the in a vacuum argument that APIs aren't a creative work seems wrong. The problem, however, is that the current fair means test in the US code probably never envisioned something like an API. Arguably, there should be a means test along the lines of "Exists primarily to provide a means of interacting with other copyrighted works" or something along those lines. Essentially, the interfaces shouldn't be copyrightable argument is an outgrowth of the fact that, if they aren't copyrightable, the fair use protections around compatibility etc. (e.g. in Lotus v. Borland) aren't as strong as one might like.
coldpie 10y ago
> some APIs really are very good and treating them like an artistic work has benefits Name one benefit. Keep in mind we've been working on the opposite assumption for the entire duration of computing history.

halo 10y ago

If other countries follow USSC's lead in declaring APIs as copyrightable, many of which have far looser fair use rights than the US, then this could create a lot of headaches, especially since this seems like a very loose interpretation of the US's already loose fair-use laws.

dragonwriter 10y ago
The USSC hasn't ruled on copyrightability (they still might in this case, and it's anyone's guess how they would.)
- oceanswave 10y ago
  The proper acronym is SCOTUS.

pfg 10y ago

> APIs are copywriteable (so says the Supreme Court) My understanding is that they refused to hear the case at the time. Is that, legally speaking, the same thing as agreeing with the circuit court, or could they have just refused to hear the case for some other reason (e.g. because they wanted to see the ruling on fair use first)?

rincebrain 10y ago
It is not the same as agreeing with the lower court - AIUI if they heard it and ruled, the scope of the decision for purposes of precedent would be* "every court" (though not necessarily every case), while declining to hear it does not change the scope or outcome of the prior ruling. * - as with everything in the legal system, there are exceptions and fuzzy lines, and IANAL.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

> APIs are copywriteable (so says the Supreme Court) That decision was not made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not heard this case...yet.

DannyBee 10y ago

The supreme court's refusal to hear a case is explicitly not a decision on the merits :)

magicalist 10y ago

> APIs are copywriteable (so says the Supreme Court) The Supreme Court denying cert is not an endorsement of a ruling. No precedent is set. They could completely disagree with the lower court's ruling but not take the case for any number of reasons: there's no split between circuits, so they want to let other opinions develop before taking on a subject, they don't believe the case details are a good test case for the subject (something the FSF argued was the case for this suit), etc. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari

dragonwriter 10y ago
They also may not have taken the case because it was an interlocutory appeal, and the Supreme Court has a strong bias toward taking appeals of final judgements and avoiding interlocutory appeals unless, in addition to a good reason to take the case, there's also a good reason not to let it go to final judgement before taking it. It's still possible that the Supreme Court could take this case and Oracle might go back to losing on copyrightability rendering fair use moot.

ghaff 10y ago

The challenge is that, taking away what most of us wanted the ultimate result to be, the in a vacuum argument that APIs aren't a creative work seems wrong. The problem, however, is that the current fair means test in the US code probably never envisioned something like an API. Arguably, there should be a means test along the lines of "Exists primarily to provide a means of interacting with other copyrighted works" or something along those lines. Essentially, the interfaces shouldn't be copyrightable argument is an outgrowth of the fact that, if they aren't copyrightable, the fair use protections around compatibility etc. (e.g. in Lotus v. Borland) aren't as strong as one might like.

coldpie 10y ago

> some APIs really are very good and treating them like an artistic work has benefits Name one benefit. Keep in mind we've been working on the opposite assumption for the entire duration of computing history.