5 ms·

There's a lot of similar responses regarding the API copyright issue. APIs have been 'subject to copyright' for 4 years, since the 2014 decision in this case. L

by ABCLAW 9y ago

There's a lot of similar responses regarding the API copyright issue. APIs have been 'subject to copyright' for 4 years, since the 2014 decision in this case. Lets see some key details: This is the 2012 ruling: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf Alsup indicates that SSO isn't dead law, but finds that APIs aren't copyrightable because they are 'the only one way to write" things to get the key functionality. Copyright doesn't cover purely functional elements and since the expression and the function are the same, copyright bows out. Note: I like Alsup, but this argument is based on obviously factually incorrect premises which are blown up on appeal. Here's the appeal in 2014: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1021.Opinion.5-7-2014.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... They summarize the facts as follows: " And, the court informed the jury that Google conceded that it copied the declaring code used in the 37 packages verbatim. The court also instructed the jury that Google conceded copying the rangeCheck function and the eight decompiled security files, but that Google maintained that its use of those lines of code was de minimis. See Final Charge to the Jury (Phase One), Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 3:10-cv3561 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012), ECF No. 1018 at 14 (“With respect to the infringement issues concerning the rangeCheck and other similar files, Google agrees that the accused lines of code and comments came from the copyrighted material but contends that the amounts involved were so negligible as to be de minimis and thus should be excused.”). " Ie: Google copied and admitted it copied. This isn't a cleanroom implementation. For more details on why they found copyrightability, see the discussion starting on p.17. There's a lot in there, and having a discussion about it (or at least a proper one) requires people to look at the actual text. Edit: Made the formatting better.

maire 9y ago
Hi ABCLAW, I read page 17 and it is clearly written by someone that doesn't understand software. My non-lawyer reading of the justification implies that polymorphism violates copyright law - which is an even deeper issue. This would destroy all modern software development. Yikes! I am now even more confused. Even Oracle would disagree with this point of view. In your text, you are now making the argument that Google did not have a cleanroom implementation. This is a different discussion that should be on it's own thread.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  1) Judges aren't computer scientists, and LOTS of IP cases read very poorly as a result. This is a structural issue with how judges are educated within court rooms regarding the facts surrounding the disputes in question - but let's just accept it as an unfortunate cost to adjudicating the way we do. Regarding your polymorphism point, you've got the cause and effect swapped. The LACK of polymorphism was the basis for Alsup saying APIs are uncopyrightable. Because there's only one way to do something, the words and the function are linked, and copyright does not protect function, ergo copyright wouldn't protect the word either. This line of reasoning doesn't flow in reverse - Polymorphism doesn't indicate that a work is copyrighted or subject to restrictions upon use, or that various safe harbour provisions/copyright exceptions do not apply. 2) There's no need for a separate discussion. I'm not making the argument; it's literally admitted by Google in the context of this case that they straight up copied chunks of code.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    I have just read from page 17 to 33. I expected a load of bullcrap, but ended up with only one nugget, page 31: > We further find that the district court erred in focusing its merger analysis on the options available to Google at the time of copying. It is well-established that copyrightability and the scope of protectable activity are to be evaluated at the time of creation, not at the time of infringement. The error is subtle, but crucial: when Sun/Oracle released their API, they gave rise to a new functionality: interoperability with whatever they just created. If someone wants to write a drop-in replacement, they have to read the declarations, copy them all, then write a conforming implementation. Changing the order of those declarations would still be possible, but one would still have to start from the original files anyway. Assuming those were readable to begin with, any transformation would be a purely legal trick, so they can say "I didn't really copied it". As far as I can tell the court either ignored or dismissed this interoperability issue. Agreeing with Oracle that Google could have renamed its function names, even though those names are part of the API they were conforming to (the `max` function is obviously part of the standard library), is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.
    - 9y ago
s2g 9y ago
Where is the obvious factual inaccuracy?
loup-vaillant 9y ago
> this argument is based on obviously factually incorrect premises Which premises are you referring to? I am not a lawyer, but I am a programmer, and what you just paraphrased sounded obviously true (at least when "the functionality" means "replacing the old system", a.k.a. interoperability).
phkahler 9y ago
Why have you chosen to mingle the verbatim copying of function implementations (range check) with the API definition copying? You say google "admitted it" which is a loaded term and you use that to say "This isn't a cleanroom implementation". Google conceded the direct copying of one function implementation and thought it not relevant - IIRC the jury awarded Oracle $1 for that. The rest of the function implementation ARE clean room implementation, and the API definitions are claimed by most of the industry to not be copyrightable. If this holds up, every programming language that was not originally produced under a suitable open source license will need to be dropped because all software written in those languages will be infringing an API copyright.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  I didn't choose to mingle those things. That's just plain what the facts are. I get that you don't like them, but that's tough beans. The case goes into discussing this directly, indicating that Google's cleanroom efforts give it evidence that it proceeded in good faith, but good faith alone does not intrinsically absolve you of admitted copying (which is an infringement) that's found elsewhere. Now if you did an ACTUAL cleanroom and didn't take chunks that you thought were trivial, the argument to demonstrate infringement in the first place would need to be localized on the SSO level, where single-option design choices would again be exempted through the doctrine of merger, and we'd have a much different set of considerations. As per the jury award to Oracle, you'll be happy to know they're going back to first instance to have another trial to determine the quantum. Maybe Oracle will get $1 again despite winning due precisely to the mitigating factors you've raised. Who knows. This case wasn't about that. It was about fair use.
  - ben509 9y ago
    "I get that you don't like them, but that's tough beans." It's hard to overstate how difficult it is to separate what you want the law to be from what it is. This is why people do so badly at representing themselves, and even lawyers have this problem.
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
lilott8 9y ago
How does this not apply, in any way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_of_software_copyrights_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_of_... I don't understand how this is never brought up with regard to API copyright. API's are software, software has been deemed copyright-able, thus, API's are copyright-able. Am I going crazy or missing something?
- hcknwscommenter 9y ago
  Many commentators on this thread are desperate to come to the opposite conclusion despite the clear case law on this question.
  - girvo 9y ago
    Because it has some pretty wide ranging effects on our industry, mostly negative (in my opinion). Though wishes and hopes don’t change court decisions, of course.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I don't understand how this is never brought up with regard to API copyright. API's are software, software has been deemed copyright-able, thus, API's are copyright-able. This is, essentially, the fallacy of division. Interfaces to software have been rules non-copyrightable despite being an element of software and thr software itself being copyrightable; this is particularly the case for user interfaces (Lotus v. Borland is the landmark case here.) There have been many comments from the legal community, including, IIRC, judges that sit on the 9th Circuit, that the Federal Circuit (which heard this case on appeal because of the patent claims in it) has misapplied binding Ninth Circuit precedent (which is supposed to control on coypright issues in this case because this came up from a district court under the 9th Circuit, and copyright law is not one of the areas where the Federal Circuit has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction.)
tripzilch 9y ago
And this jury, that made the decision about APIs being copyrightable (in the US), that made this into "a clear loser for Google" in 2014 were also a dozen randomly selected laymen with no background in law nor programming? Which part of "let's find a small group of the least qualified people to decide on billion dollar cases" ever seemed like a good idea to anyone? Then there's the judge, who has a background in law but NOT in programming. Then there's the lawyers, who have a background in both (assuming the expensive lawyers G and O can afford), as well as years and years of practice influencing the decisions of small groups of laymen.

by ABCLAW 9y ago

maire 9y ago

Hi ABCLAW, I read page 17 and it is clearly written by someone that doesn't understand software. My non-lawyer reading of the justification implies that polymorphism violates copyright law - which is an even deeper issue. This would destroy all modern software development. Yikes! I am now even more confused. Even Oracle would disagree with this point of view. In your text, you are now making the argument that Google did not have a cleanroom implementation. This is a different discussion that should be on it's own thread.

ABCLAW 9y ago
1) Judges aren't computer scientists, and LOTS of IP cases read very poorly as a result. This is a structural issue with how judges are educated within court rooms regarding the facts surrounding the disputes in question - but let's just accept it as an unfortunate cost to adjudicating the way we do. Regarding your polymorphism point, you've got the cause and effect swapped. The LACK of polymorphism was the basis for Alsup saying APIs are uncopyrightable. Because there's only one way to do something, the words and the function are linked, and copyright does not protect function, ergo copyright wouldn't protect the word either. This line of reasoning doesn't flow in reverse - Polymorphism doesn't indicate that a work is copyrighted or subject to restrictions upon use, or that various safe harbour provisions/copyright exceptions do not apply. 2) There's no need for a separate discussion. I'm not making the argument; it's literally admitted by Google in the context of this case that they straight up copied chunks of code.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  I have just read from page 17 to 33. I expected a load of bullcrap, but ended up with only one nugget, page 31: > We further find that the district court erred in focusing its merger analysis on the options available to Google at the time of copying. It is well-established that copyrightability and the scope of protectable activity are to be evaluated at the time of creation, not at the time of infringement. The error is subtle, but crucial: when Sun/Oracle released their API, they gave rise to a new functionality: interoperability with whatever they just created. If someone wants to write a drop-in replacement, they have to read the declarations, copy them all, then write a conforming implementation. Changing the order of those declarations would still be possible, but one would still have to start from the original files anyway. Assuming those were readable to begin with, any transformation would be a purely legal trick, so they can say "I didn't really copied it". As far as I can tell the court either ignored or dismissed this interoperability issue. Agreeing with Oracle that Google could have renamed its function names, even though those names are part of the API they were conforming to (the `max` function is obviously part of the standard library), is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.
  - 9y ago

s2g 9y ago

Where is the obvious factual inaccuracy?

loup-vaillant 9y ago

> this argument is based on obviously factually incorrect premises Which premises are you referring to? I am not a lawyer, but I am a programmer, and what you just paraphrased sounded obviously true (at least when "the functionality" means "replacing the old system", a.k.a. interoperability).

phkahler 9y ago

Why have you chosen to mingle the verbatim copying of function implementations (range check) with the API definition copying? You say google "admitted it" which is a loaded term and you use that to say "This isn't a cleanroom implementation". Google conceded the direct copying of one function implementation and thought it not relevant - IIRC the jury awarded Oracle $1 for that. The rest of the function implementation ARE clean room implementation, and the API definitions are claimed by most of the industry to not be copyrightable. If this holds up, every programming language that was not originally produced under a suitable open source license will need to be dropped because all software written in those languages will be infringing an API copyright.

ABCLAW 9y ago
I didn't choose to mingle those things. That's just plain what the facts are. I get that you don't like them, but that's tough beans. The case goes into discussing this directly, indicating that Google's cleanroom efforts give it evidence that it proceeded in good faith, but good faith alone does not intrinsically absolve you of admitted copying (which is an infringement) that's found elsewhere. Now if you did an ACTUAL cleanroom and didn't take chunks that you thought were trivial, the argument to demonstrate infringement in the first place would need to be localized on the SSO level, where single-option design choices would again be exempted through the doctrine of merger, and we'd have a much different set of considerations. As per the jury award to Oracle, you'll be happy to know they're going back to first instance to have another trial to determine the quantum. Maybe Oracle will get $1 again despite winning due precisely to the mitigating factors you've raised. Who knows. This case wasn't about that. It was about fair use.
- ben509 9y ago
  "I get that you don't like them, but that's tough beans." It's hard to overstate how difficult it is to separate what you want the law to be from what it is. This is why people do so badly at representing themselves, and even lawyers have this problem.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago

lilott8 9y ago

How does this not apply, in any way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_of_software_copyrights_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_of_... I don't understand how this is never brought up with regard to API copyright. API's are software, software has been deemed copyright-able, thus, API's are copyright-able. Am I going crazy or missing something?

hcknwscommenter 9y ago
Many commentators on this thread are desperate to come to the opposite conclusion despite the clear case law on this question.
- girvo 9y ago
  Because it has some pretty wide ranging effects on our industry, mostly negative (in my opinion). Though wishes and hopes don’t change court decisions, of course.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I don't understand how this is never brought up with regard to API copyright. API's are software, software has been deemed copyright-able, thus, API's are copyright-able. This is, essentially, the fallacy of division. Interfaces to software have been rules non-copyrightable despite being an element of software and thr software itself being copyrightable; this is particularly the case for user interfaces (Lotus v. Borland is the landmark case here.) There have been many comments from the legal community, including, IIRC, judges that sit on the 9th Circuit, that the Federal Circuit (which heard this case on appeal because of the patent claims in it) has misapplied binding Ninth Circuit precedent (which is supposed to control on coypright issues in this case because this came up from a district court under the 9th Circuit, and copyright law is not one of the areas where the Federal Circuit has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction.)

tripzilch 9y ago

And this jury, that made the decision about APIs being copyrightable (in the US), that made this into "a clear loser for Google" in 2014 were also a dozen randomly selected laymen with no background in law nor programming? Which part of "let's find a small group of the least qualified people to decide on billion dollar cases" ever seemed like a good idea to anyone? Then there's the judge, who has a background in law but NOT in programming. Then there's the lawyers, who have a background in both (assuming the expensive lawyers G and O can afford), as well as years and years of practice influencing the decisions of small groups of laymen.