4 ms·

They did appeal, and the Supreme Court pretty much said they didn't want to look at this until a trial took place on the fair use question. Now that that's happ

They did appeal, and the Supreme Court pretty much said they didn't want to look at this until a trial took place on the fair use question. Now that that's happened, I assume there will be another appeal to the Supreme Court.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I sure hope so. That decision definitely needs to be appealed. I very much hope it's overturned. (The industry has pretty much assumed - and acted - that APIs were not copyrightable, and that's worked out all right. Suddenly shifting to APIs being copyrightable is going to cause some change the rules under existing activity, in ways that it's hard yet to define the full scope of.) But even if it's not, the decision needs to be appealed. Right now the situation is that APIs are copyrightable, but only for sure within one of the US Federal Court districts. In the other districts, they may be copyrightable. Or they may not be. If they aren't, then we have different law applying in different districts until the Supreme Court decides to resolve the issue. A Supreme Court decision now, one way or the other, would at least give resolution. (If they decide that APIs are copyrightable, then we'd have different law in the US and Europe, but at least it would be the same law everywhere in the US.) [Edit: Apparently this isn't in a district court, it's in the Federal Circuit, which handles patent cases.]
- shmerl 9y ago
  Didn't White House administration try to interfere with this case, and persuade judges not to declare APIs non copyrightable? That was really weird. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-sides-with-oracle-tells-supreme-court-apis-are-copyrightable/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-side... I wonder what will happen this time.
  - carussell 9y ago
    That's an interesting way to characterize it. When the Supreme Court was considering Google's petition to hear the case, the court asked the White House to voice an opinion—where by "White House administration", you mean the Solicitor General. That's not "weird"; that's a normal part of the job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States#CVSG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_Unite...
    - shmerl 9y ago
      The weird part was in their view on copyrightability of APIs.
      - carussell 9y ago
        That's not weird, either. What would have been weird is a finding that they're not copyrightable, given that it would have been completely at odds with the statutes and case law we have concerning copyright. The point is, nuance matters. If you're physically attacked and defend yourself in a way where you end up killing the guy, you claim that your actions were justified. You don't go to court claiming that killing people is just not a problem. Here's how this case should go: 0. Oracle sues Google for copyright infringement. 1. Courts find that the design of APIs is an expression resulting from substantial creative decisions far above the low bar we already have for precedent, and therefore they're copyrightable. 2. Google defends themselves on the claim that, creativity notwithstanding, merely implementing a public API should not subject an implementor to the consequences of copyright infringement, and that there are no damages owed here. And by every indication, we're right on track. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949839 And it looks like you're moving the goalposts and shitting out two-second replies, anyway, so I'm done commenting further here.
        shmerl 9y ago
        > What would have been weird is a finding that they're not copyrightable Nothing weird with that. APIs are meta tools, not actual tools. That's what "I" in the name is for. They are interfaces for a reason. It makes perfect sense for interfaces to be non copyrightable. EU courts got it right: Computer code itself can be copyrighted, but functional characteristics—such as data formats and function names— cannot be. "To accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development > And by every indication, we're right on track. We are not, until Supreme Court will overturn the current ruling and will clear APIs from copyrightability for good. > I'm done commenting further here. Sure, you brought no arguments to defend the illogical position of APIs copyrightability anyway.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- wtallis 9y ago
  > Apparently this isn't in a district court, it's in the Federal Circuit, which handles patent cases. This is a very important nuance. As I understand it, for the issues in this case that are outside the Federal Circuit's usual jurisdiction (patents), the Federal Circuit was supposed to rule however the local circuit (Ninth) would have ruled. The Ninth Circuit probably wouldn't declare APIs copyrightable, but the Federal Circuit did. However, the Federal Circuit doesn't establish binding precedent for the Ninth Circuit on non-patent issues. That's part of why the Supreme Court didn't take up this case, and why many of the amicus briefs recommended against the Supreme Court taking up the case. Google gets screwed, but that ruling didn't have cause an immediate upheaval of copyright law in the jurisdiction that includes Silicon Valley and Redmond. All that their decision really established was an incentive to include bullshit patent claims in any copyright suit that pertains to APIs, so that you can get your appeals heard by the Federal Circuit instead of your local circuit.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

I sure hope so. That decision definitely needs to be appealed. I very much hope it's overturned. (The industry has pretty much assumed - and acted - that APIs were not copyrightable, and that's worked out all right. Suddenly shifting to APIs being copyrightable is going to cause some change the rules under existing activity, in ways that it's hard yet to define the full scope of.) But even if it's not, the decision needs to be appealed. Right now the situation is that APIs are copyrightable, but only for sure within one of the US Federal Court districts. In the other districts, they may be copyrightable. Or they may not be. If they aren't, then we have different law applying in different districts until the Supreme Court decides to resolve the issue. A Supreme Court decision now, one way or the other, would at least give resolution. (If they decide that APIs are copyrightable, then we'd have different law in the US and Europe, but at least it would be the same law everywhere in the US.) [Edit: Apparently this isn't in a district court, it's in the Federal Circuit, which handles patent cases.]

shmerl 9y ago
Didn't White House administration try to interfere with this case, and persuade judges not to declare APIs non copyrightable? That was really weird. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-sides-with-oracle-tells-supreme-court-apis-are-copyrightable/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-side... I wonder what will happen this time.
- carussell 9y ago
  That's an interesting way to characterize it. When the Supreme Court was considering Google's petition to hear the case, the court asked the White House to voice an opinion—where by "White House administration", you mean the Solicitor General. That's not "weird"; that's a normal part of the job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States#CVSG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_Unite...
  - shmerl 9y ago
    The weird part was in their view on copyrightability of APIs.
    - carussell 9y ago
      That's not weird, either. What would have been weird is a finding that they're not copyrightable, given that it would have been completely at odds with the statutes and case law we have concerning copyright. The point is, nuance matters. If you're physically attacked and defend yourself in a way where you end up killing the guy, you claim that your actions were justified. You don't go to court claiming that killing people is just not a problem. Here's how this case should go: 0. Oracle sues Google for copyright infringement. 1. Courts find that the design of APIs is an expression resulting from substantial creative decisions far above the low bar we already have for precedent, and therefore they're copyrightable. 2. Google defends themselves on the claim that, creativity notwithstanding, merely implementing a public API should not subject an implementor to the consequences of copyright infringement, and that there are no damages owed here. And by every indication, we're right on track. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949839 And it looks like you're moving the goalposts and shitting out two-second replies, anyway, so I'm done commenting further here.
      - shmerl 9y ago
        > What would have been weird is a finding that they're not copyrightable Nothing weird with that. APIs are meta tools, not actual tools. That's what "I" in the name is for. They are interfaces for a reason. It makes perfect sense for interfaces to be non copyrightable. EU courts got it right: Computer code itself can be copyrighted, but functional characteristics—such as data formats and function names— cannot be. "To accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development > And by every indication, we're right on track. We are not, until Supreme Court will overturn the current ruling and will clear APIs from copyrightability for good. > I'm done commenting further here. Sure, you brought no arguments to defend the illogical position of APIs copyrightability anyway.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
wtallis 9y ago
> Apparently this isn't in a district court, it's in the Federal Circuit, which handles patent cases. This is a very important nuance. As I understand it, for the issues in this case that are outside the Federal Circuit's usual jurisdiction (patents), the Federal Circuit was supposed to rule however the local circuit (Ninth) would have ruled. The Ninth Circuit probably wouldn't declare APIs copyrightable, but the Federal Circuit did. However, the Federal Circuit doesn't establish binding precedent for the Ninth Circuit on non-patent issues. That's part of why the Supreme Court didn't take up this case, and why many of the amicus briefs recommended against the Supreme Court taking up the case. Google gets screwed, but that ruling didn't have cause an immediate upheaval of copyright law in the jurisdiction that includes Silicon Valley and Redmond. All that their decision really established was an incentive to include bullshit patent claims in any copyright suit that pertains to APIs, so that you can get your appeals heard by the Federal Circuit instead of your local circuit.