>I am arguing that the API is not (or should not be) copyrightable in the first place, because any attempt at interoperability would instantly void it. The cou

>I am arguing that the API is not (or should not be) copyrightable in the first place, because any attempt at interoperability would instantly void it. The court specifically deals with this assertion and does not come to the conclusion that you do. >And overall, it is very weird that Google's intent matters here. No it isn't. This case was about Fair use, and intention matters for some of the test elements. A bunch of people think this case is about API copywritability. They're four years too late to complain.