5 ms·

It wasn't even really a case (like say, Samba) where copying was necessary to interoperate with a closed, proprietary system. Samba never copied anything. The

It wasn't even really a case (like say, Samba) where copying was necessary to interoperate with a closed, proprietary system. Samba never copied anything. The interoperability argument was simple. Google wanted to use a language that was familiar to most and where developers could take existing code and port trivially. There are developer tools on the market that have done that for decades. Davlik isn't drop-in compatible with the JVM anyway. Oracle were never going to get away with that crap argument. To say that had Google copied all the APIs and created a compatible JVM that would have constituted fair use is laughable frankly. Sun also open sourced Java which doesn't help them at all, and Oracle somewhat pathetically tried to backtrack on that. That makes Oracle's win on the subject matter issue basically a pyrrhic victory for anyone looking to protect their APIs. They're protectable, but can't be protected in any realistic scenario. The only sensible outcome. Had Oracle won we would have had years of court action in the developer software tools market until someone saw sense and simply ruled fair use in all cases. That may still happen. And if you're in the camp that believes APIs should not be protected, this precedent--if it stands--means that you'll have to shoulder the expense of going to trial on the fair use issue before winning on the merits. We'll have to get to a point where if court action is raised then it will automatically have to be thrown out. You can copyright APIs, but you can't tell others how they should be used.

forrestthewoods 10y ago
> You can copyright APIs, but you can't tell others how they should be used. What does that mean? What privileges would such a copyright provide? What could I do with the copyright that I couldn't do without?
- Sleaker 10y ago
  I think you've just started to delve into the problem domain of copyright vs copyleft and why there are legal considerations when you allow people to access your software using an API.
- farcical_tinpot 10y ago
  It is as ridiculous as it sounds. There is simply no case at all where API use cannot be sensibly argued as fair use. That's why you use an API in the first place........ What privileges would such a copyright provide? In practice? None.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    > There is simply no case at all where API use cannot be sensibly argued as fair use. An API being used by a client and an API being copied by a competitor to be used by those same clients are two completely different situations.
    - farcical_tinpot 10y ago
      Nope, they aren't, or at the very least, the difference between them is as to be indistinguishable. That's what the jury decided here. Using API and the word 'copied' in the same sentence simply doesn't mean anything.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  Wave around a piece of legal paper with your name on it, if you file it with the copyright office. And that's about it.
curt15 10y ago
>Oracle were never going to get away with that crap argument. To say that had Google copied all the APIs and created a compatible JVM that would have constituted fair use is laughable frankly. Besides, how is the argument that Google effectively didn't copy enough at all consistent with the fair use factor regarding the amount of expression copied?
- farcical_tinpot 10y ago
  It's not, but Oracle had got themselves into a bind over the definition of 'interoperability'. They did indeed argue that Google hadn't copied enough, in so many words. The trouble is that interoperability takes many forms and can't be shoved into a neat box like that.
monocasa 10y ago
> Samba never copied anything. According to this case, they did.
- farcical_tinpot 10y ago
  Nope. Not sure where you're getting that from.
  - nl 10y ago
    Samba is API compatible with Windows file server. Unless you are arguing that network protocol compatibility is a different thing? It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap, since Samba relies on re implementing the same behavior as a Windows file server.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      Copyright doesn't care about the software's behavior, just the text and structure of the code. Samba implemented CIFS without looking at or copying any Microsoft code.
      - zaroth 10y ago
        This is such a key point and yet also quite confusing. Obviously copyright is not patents. Copyright is about preventing literal copying of someone's creation. So.., if you implement an API in a different programming language, such that the text and structure is different, and yet the function remains the same... then have you not infringed any copyright?
        true_religion 10y ago
        Copyright is about literal reuse of someones functional product, not about reuse of the abstract ideas that make up it. To me an API, is just a formalization of declaring your intention to implement a particular functionality.
gnoway 10y ago
If you automatically throw out cases, what's the point of having a law enabling and encouraging those cases in the first place? Or maybe a better question is: what would legitimate infringement look like, if what Google did is fair use? I don't know if APIs should be subject to copyright or not. I certainly don't want them to be. But since APIs have been found copyrightable, it's hard to understand how this wasn't open and shut for Oracle.
- wtallis 10y ago
  Thus far, APIs have only been found copyrightable by the court that is specifically about patents. It's highly doubtful that any court capable of setting binding precedent on the matter will agree, especially to the same industry-destroying extent. It should be expected that when a district court and its jury have their hands tied by a bad appeals court decision, the outcome will look a bit odd. In many ways our system of case law functions like a body of software where patches can only add lines of code, not remove them. Convoluted solutions to work around previous mistakes end up practically set in stone and refactoring is at best a once in a lifetime opportunity.

forrestthewoods 10y ago

> You can copyright APIs, but you can't tell others how they should be used. What does that mean? What privileges would such a copyright provide? What could I do with the copyright that I couldn't do without?

Sleaker 10y ago
I think you've just started to delve into the problem domain of copyright vs copyleft and why there are legal considerations when you allow people to access your software using an API.
farcical_tinpot 10y ago
It is as ridiculous as it sounds. There is simply no case at all where API use cannot be sensibly argued as fair use. That's why you use an API in the first place........ What privileges would such a copyright provide? In practice? None.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  > There is simply no case at all where API use cannot be sensibly argued as fair use. An API being used by a client and an API being copied by a competitor to be used by those same clients are two completely different situations.
  - farcical_tinpot 10y ago
    Nope, they aren't, or at the very least, the difference between them is as to be indistinguishable. That's what the jury decided here. Using API and the word 'copied' in the same sentence simply doesn't mean anything.
Natanael_L 10y ago
Wave around a piece of legal paper with your name on it, if you file it with the copyright office. And that's about it.

curt15 10y ago

>Oracle were never going to get away with that crap argument. To say that had Google copied all the APIs and created a compatible JVM that would have constituted fair use is laughable frankly. Besides, how is the argument that Google effectively didn't copy enough at all consistent with the fair use factor regarding the amount of expression copied?

farcical_tinpot 10y ago
It's not, but Oracle had got themselves into a bind over the definition of 'interoperability'. They did indeed argue that Google hadn't copied enough, in so many words. The trouble is that interoperability takes many forms and can't be shoved into a neat box like that.

monocasa 10y ago

> Samba never copied anything. According to this case, they did.

farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Nope. Not sure where you're getting that from.
- nl 10y ago
  Samba is API compatible with Windows file server. Unless you are arguing that network protocol compatibility is a different thing? It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap, since Samba relies on re implementing the same behavior as a Windows file server.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Copyright doesn't care about the software's behavior, just the text and structure of the code. Samba implemented CIFS without looking at or copying any Microsoft code.
    - zaroth 10y ago
      This is such a key point and yet also quite confusing. Obviously copyright is not patents. Copyright is about preventing literal copying of someone's creation. So.., if you implement an API in a different programming language, such that the text and structure is different, and yet the function remains the same... then have you not infringed any copyright?
      - true_religion 10y ago
        Copyright is about literal reuse of someones functional product, not about reuse of the abstract ideas that make up it. To me an API, is just a formalization of declaring your intention to implement a particular functionality.

gnoway 10y ago

If you automatically throw out cases, what's the point of having a law enabling and encouraging those cases in the first place? Or maybe a better question is: what would legitimate infringement look like, if what Google did is fair use? I don't know if APIs should be subject to copyright or not. I certainly don't want them to be. But since APIs have been found copyrightable, it's hard to understand how this wasn't open and shut for Oracle.

wtallis 10y ago
Thus far, APIs have only been found copyrightable by the court that is specifically about patents. It's highly doubtful that any court capable of setting binding precedent on the matter will agree, especially to the same industry-destroying extent. It should be expected that when a district court and its jury have their hands tied by a bad appeals court decision, the outcome will look a bit odd. In many ways our system of case law functions like a body of software where patches can only add lines of code, not remove them. Convoluted solutions to work around previous mistakes end up practically set in stone and refactoring is at best a once in a lifetime opportunity.