3 ms·
That is a gross mischaracterization of what Oracle did. They didn't just defend a copyright in court. They pushed to extend copyright to a mostly functional ele
by chc 7y ago
That is a gross mischaracterization of what Oracle did. They didn't just defend a copyright in court. They pushed to extend copyright to a mostly functional element that copyright law has not traditionally been thought to cover. It's a tremendously harmful viewpoint for interoperability.
- btilly 7y agoNot just "not traditionally been thought to cover", but which existing precedent said DID NOT cover. Does it surprise anyone that this case was decided by the Federal Circuit? The rogue court most consistently overturned by the Supreme Court, which also is responsible for most of the disastrous software patent cases out there. The only bright light is that the Supreme Court has reopened the question. Given how often they overturn the Federal Circuit, we have real hope that we'll return to the previous precedent. Which is that since matching APIs is a functional part of how code works, and things that are functional are by law not copyrightable, APIs are not copyrightable.