3 ms·

Bugs are a red-herring to the discussion. Bugs doesn't get you out of copying. The question is: did you copy or not? Google argued "we certainly did copy but

Bugs are a red-herring to the discussion. Bugs doesn't get you out of copying. The question is: did you copy or not? Google argued "we certainly did copy but APIs can't be copyrighted." Which was not the law at the time they did the copying and is not the law now .

monocasa 9y ago
Except it is the law now and then that APIs aren't copyrightable according to the court that's generally supposed to handle such things, in this instance The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. They've ruled plenty of times on the matter, and have developed decades of case law stating that implementing APIs is totally kosher. Sony v. Bleem is great example. There the appeals court ruled that not only could Bleem ship a PS1 emulator with reverse engineered APIs of the kernel (explicitly as a commercial venture even!), but they could port it to a competitor's game console (the Dreamcast), and use Sony's IP in screenshots. But, because Oracle v. Google case had an ancillary patent question in an earlier appeal, the appeals are instead going to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court is really only supposed to answer patent questions. The CAFC can't set precedent in these matters, and overwhelmingly defers to the district courts' precedent. Bot for some reason they have chose to ignore all of that this time and make their own, fresh (and super weak) precedent that only applies to copyright cases with patent questions.
- stjohnswarts 9y ago
  I bet if one looks hard enough he would find links between these judges and moneyed interests tracing back to Oracle.
  - monocasa 9y ago
    Eh, I wouldn't go that far. CAFC judges just tend to be appointed (at least a little) for how much of a hard on they have intellectual property rights in general. The whole circuit was setup pretty much only to do patent appeals for the most part. The judges probably just think of themselves as 'principled'. And they are technically allowed to do this, despite it being kind of a dick move.
- hcknwscommenter 9y ago
  >APIs aren't copyrightable according to the court that's generally supposed to handle such things, in this instance The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit That is just not true. According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    > According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit has the right to hear and decide this particular case, but they do not have the right to establish binding precedent on lower courts or other appeals courts in matters of copyright law. This has been explained to you repeatedly.
- hcknwscommenter 9y ago
  >not only could Bleem ship a PS1 emulator with reverse engineered APIs of the kernel Not all types of reverse engineering is considered copying. See IBM PC BIOS cases.
  - monocasa 9y ago
    There weren't "IBM PC cases". All of that work was based on Apple v. Franklin, a 9th circuit case that held that APIs aren't protected by copyright.

monocasa 9y ago

Except it is the law now and then that APIs aren't copyrightable according to the court that's generally supposed to handle such things, in this instance The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. They've ruled plenty of times on the matter, and have developed decades of case law stating that implementing APIs is totally kosher. Sony v. Bleem is great example. There the appeals court ruled that not only could Bleem ship a PS1 emulator with reverse engineered APIs of the kernel (explicitly as a commercial venture even!), but they could port it to a competitor's game console (the Dreamcast), and use Sony's IP in screenshots. But, because Oracle v. Google case had an ancillary patent question in an earlier appeal, the appeals are instead going to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court is really only supposed to answer patent questions. The CAFC can't set precedent in these matters, and overwhelmingly defers to the district courts' precedent. Bot for some reason they have chose to ignore all of that this time and make their own, fresh (and super weak) precedent that only applies to copyright cases with patent questions.

stjohnswarts 9y ago
I bet if one looks hard enough he would find links between these judges and moneyed interests tracing back to Oracle.
- monocasa 9y ago
  Eh, I wouldn't go that far. CAFC judges just tend to be appointed (at least a little) for how much of a hard on they have intellectual property rights in general. The whole circuit was setup pretty much only to do patent appeals for the most part. The judges probably just think of themselves as 'principled'. And they are technically allowed to do this, despite it being kind of a dick move.
hcknwscommenter 9y ago
>APIs aren't copyrightable according to the court that's generally supposed to handle such things, in this instance The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit That is just not true. According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction.
- wtallis 9y ago
  > According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit has the right to hear and decide this particular case, but they do not have the right to establish binding precedent on lower courts or other appeals courts in matters of copyright law. This has been explained to you repeatedly.
hcknwscommenter 9y ago
>not only could Bleem ship a PS1 emulator with reverse engineered APIs of the kernel Not all types of reverse engineering is considered copying. See IBM PC BIOS cases.
- monocasa 9y ago
  There weren't "IBM PC cases". All of that work was based on Apple v. Franklin, a 9th circuit case that held that APIs aren't protected by copyright.