6 ms·

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 sta

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
> Here's how this case should go [...] > And by every indication, we're right on track. You're leaving out the step where the district court found that APIs aren't copyrightable, but the district court was overruled by an appeals court that normally has no right to rule on such matters and does not set binding precedent on such matters. If Oracle's now-dead patent claims hadn't been included in their original complaint, then the process you describe would likely have ended Oracle's case at step one with the Ninth Circuit upholding Alsup's ruling on API copyrightability.
- carussell 9y ago
  First: No, I didn't leave anything out. Review the link I included in my last comment. Hold on to the Federal Circuit as a personal stick in your craw if you want, but I didn't leave it out. Second: That's a stretch. To argue that the case would have stopped at the Ninth Circuit is to argue that because the Supreme Court denied Google's petition to reverse the Federal Circuit, then they would have denied Oracle's petition to reverse the Ninth Circuit. That's a junk argument.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    > To argue that the case would have stopped at the Ninth Circuit is to argue that because the Supreme Court denied Google's petition to reverse the Federal Circuit, then they would have denied Oracle's petition to reverse the Ninth Circuit. That's not the argument I'm making. The Supreme Court had several procedural reasons for not granting Google's petition for certiorari: the Federal Circuit's decisions were not setting binding precedent outside of this particular case, and there were still issues to be decided by the lower courts that included avenues for Google to prevail, making it unnecessary for the Supreme Court to render a landmark decision on the matter of API copyright. If the appeals had gone to the Ninth Circuit, Google's appeal would have stood a much better chance than it did before the Federal Circuit. A Ninth Circuit decision in the matter would have set a very important precedent, but a decision in favor of Google would not have created any obvious circuit split and wouldn't have upset the status quo of the software industry. On the other hand, a decision in favor of Oracle would potentially have consequences serious enough to be a priority issue for the Supreme Court whether or not it created a circuit split.

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

> Here's how this case should go [...] > And by every indication, we're right on track. You're leaving out the step where the district court found that APIs aren't copyrightable, but the district court was overruled by an appeals court that normally has no right to rule on such matters and does not set binding precedent on such matters. If Oracle's now-dead patent claims hadn't been included in their original complaint, then the process you describe would likely have ended Oracle's case at step one with the Ninth Circuit upholding Alsup's ruling on API copyrightability.

carussell 9y ago
First: No, I didn't leave anything out. Review the link I included in my last comment. Hold on to the Federal Circuit as a personal stick in your craw if you want, but I didn't leave it out. Second: That's a stretch. To argue that the case would have stopped at the Ninth Circuit is to argue that because the Supreme Court denied Google's petition to reverse the Federal Circuit, then they would have denied Oracle's petition to reverse the Ninth Circuit. That's a junk argument.
- wtallis 9y ago
  > To argue that the case would have stopped at the Ninth Circuit is to argue that because the Supreme Court denied Google's petition to reverse the Federal Circuit, then they would have denied Oracle's petition to reverse the Ninth Circuit. That's not the argument I'm making. The Supreme Court had several procedural reasons for not granting Google's petition for certiorari: the Federal Circuit's decisions were not setting binding precedent outside of this particular case, and there were still issues to be decided by the lower courts that included avenues for Google to prevail, making it unnecessary for the Supreme Court to render a landmark decision on the matter of API copyright. If the appeals had gone to the Ninth Circuit, Google's appeal would have stood a much better chance than it did before the Federal Circuit. A Ninth Circuit decision in the matter would have set a very important precedent, but a decision in favor of Google would not have created any obvious circuit split and wouldn't have upset the status quo of the software industry. On the other hand, a decision in favor of Oracle would potentially have consequences serious enough to be a priority issue for the Supreme Court whether or not it created a circuit split.