4 ms·
But Oracle vs. Google is the citation. Google previously won based on Fair Use. By definition, that court considered APIs to be copyrightable. If they weren't,
by deong 9y ago
But Oracle vs. Google is the citation. Google previously won based on Fair Use. By definition, that court considered APIs to be copyrightable. If they weren't, the case would have been adjudicated on those grounds instead of the provisions of copyright law that govern fair use.
- wtallis 9y agoThe district court found APIs to not be copyrightable. The Federal Circuit disagreed, and ordered the district court to hold a trial under the assumption that APIs are copyrightable—that's when Google's fair use defense became necessary. That Federal Circuit decision has not been reviewed by the Supreme Court, does not establish binding precedent outside the context of this case, and is widely seen by outsiders as being in error for not matching what the Ninth Circuit would have ruled. It is incorrect to make any categorical statement that APIs are copyrightable. That question is still pending. All that's been settled is that this one case is being conducted under the assumption that APIs are copyrightable, until such time as the Supreme Court decides to review this issue.
- hcknwscommenter 9y ago> That Federal Circuit decision has not been reviewed by the Supreme Court, does not establish binding precedent outside the context of this case, The Supreme Court need not weigh in in order to make the law what it is.
- lmm 9y agoThe law is what it is by definition, but when what the law is is in dispute, the Supreme Court is what resolves it.
- girvo 9y agoSure. Honest question: is it law now? As of March 2018? What need to happen for API copyright to become law, if the answer to that is “not yet”?
- monocasa 9y agoThe CAFC can't set precedent on this matter.
- bad_user 9y agoThat creates a circular argument.