16 ms·

Oracle's history highlights a possible downside to its stance on API copyrights

168 points by Bella-Xiang 7y ago

enitihas 7y ago
Oracle seems to have partnered with, surprise, Breitbart, to present their side on this case. Source: https://twitter.com/joshbloch/status/1237518298922745861 https://twitter.com/joshbloch/status/1237518298922745861
- jshevek 7y ago
  Breitbart's coverage does not appear severely biased, in this case: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/21/report-trump-backs-oracle-in-legal-battle-with-google/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/21/report-trump-backs... (I suppose just saying "Trump backs.." can be a signal indicating what the Trump supporting readers ought to think. OTOH, the same language on CNN has a similar effect in the opposite direction.)
0xcde4c3db 7y ago
I'm not sure I'll ever properly get my head around this case. On one hand, it's certainly possible to make an intellectually sound argument that APIs are eligible for copyright. On the other hand, such an argument seems to imply that IBM PC clones, MS-DOS, and Linux have all been infringing from the start and it's just that everybody has been too timid to actually enforce their API copyrights over the course of decades where there were plenty of affiliated deep pockets to raid. And that seems really hard to swallow.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  Except Oracle hasn't claimed a copyright on its API's. It claims a copyright on their structure and organization
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    That's an effectively non-replaceable subset of the API. So in almost all cases that matter, it's equivalent to a copyright on "the API".
    - niftich 7y ago
      In 886 F.3d 1179 (2018) [1][2], the Fed. Cir. noted that: "62 classes (and some of their methods), spread across three packages within the Java API library, must be used. Otherwise the language itself will fail." "On remand, the parties stipulated that only 170 lines of code were necessary to write in the Java language. It is undisputed, however, that Google copied 11,500 lines of code — 11,330 more lines than necessary to write in Java. That Google copied more than necessary weighs against fair use." [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10745164935676158704 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107451649356761... [2] https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180327178 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180327178
      - hyperpallium 7y ago
        TFA: Copyright law specifically excludes "systems" and "methods of operation" from copyright protection. Sounds like a "clean room implementation" is needed, and that Google copied more than what was needed for inter-op. If so, Google might lose the case, but the legal precedent would be you can copy apis but not implemention (unless that's the only way to implement them).
      - jayd16 7y ago
        What? Java String alone has close to 100 members and even without function bodies would be over 170 lines unless you put every method on a single line.
        niftich 7y ago
        Here's some additional context in from a lower court: Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2016) [1]: "Oracle has portrayed the Java programming language as distinct from the Java API library, insisting that only the language itself was free for all to use. Turns out, however, that in order to write at all in the Java programming language, 62 classes (and some of their methods), spread across three packages within the Java API library, must be used. Otherwise, the language itself will fail. The 62 "necessary" classes are mixed with "unnecessary" ones in the Java API library and it takes experts to comb them out. As a result, Oracle has now stipulated before the jury that it was fair to use the 62 "necessary" classes given that the Java programming language itself was free and open to use without a license" "That the 62 "necessary" classes reside without any identification as such within the Java API library (rather than reside within the programming language) supports Google's contention that the Java API library is simply an extension of the programming language itself and helps explain why some view the Java API declarations as free and open for use as the programming language itself. At least to the extent of the 62 "necessary" classes, Oracle agrees." [1] https://casetext.com/case/oracle-am-inc-v-google-inc-19#N196796 https://casetext.com/case/oracle-am-inc-v-google-inc-19#N196...
- wtallis 7y ago
  The idea that so much existing infrastructure would infringe on this new kind of copyright is tough to accept, but at least it's very straightforward in a way, with brutal direct consequences. What I have more of a problem with is that we have no clear precedents for how API copyright will work in practice if it is suddenly foisted upon the real world. What does it mean for an API to be licensed under the GPLv2, or any other copyright license that was written with source code and object code in mind but not APIs? How will we determine which license agreements executed long ago should be retroactively considered to include or exclude the APIs? How many industry standards will have to be assessed for whether the relevant APIs are available under FRAND licensing terms as the relevant patents usually are? Is there a distinction between providing vs using an API, for the purposes of determining copyright infringement?
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > The idea that so much existing infrastructure would infringe on this new kind of copyright is tough to accept, but at least it's very straightforward in a way, with brutal direct consequences. I don't anticipate a doom-and-gloom scenario if APIs were all-of-a-sudden copyrightable. Today, open source software is backed by powerful companies, and there is far less lock-in to any particular set of software functionality. The likely outcome is that big tech companies would just cross-license their basic APIs like Win32, SQL, NTFS, POSIX-like functionality, and other basic interface layers. Today in 2020, the value is not in the interface, but data. Facebook probably wouldn't care if you created a clone that used the same API structure. But if you started imported their user data, you could expect a lawsuit.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      Your best case scenario is that hardly anyone attempts to follow in the footsteps of a resounding Oracle success, and that everyone in the industry is saddled with huge potential liabilities until a massive multi-year relicensing project can be completed to confirm who is committed to never trying Oracle's tactics when they fall on hard times. That is a doom and gloom scenario for anyone who takes legal threats seriously and doesn't have an IBM-class mutually assured destruction IP portfolio. It's postulating a series of events that leaves us with most of the software industry intact, but for the most part would still be a scenario where the only true winners are the lawyers.
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  I believe there were lawsuits over IBM clones, way back when, amd the clones won, based on interoperability. Apis are software, not hardware, but you'd expect this to be the same, because of the same underlying policy considerations. Sometimes courts uphold the letter of the law, but say the legislature should change it.
  - jclulow 7y ago
    I believe the substance of those suits was on the copyright protection IBM were due on the ROM BIOS image, which was the most substantial piece of IP developed by IBM for the PC. In the end, clones won because the BIOS call interface could be replicated without directly copying that software artefact -- merely its behaviour -- and so actually seems pretty relevant to API copyright issues generally.
  - niftich 7y ago
    IBM sued Corona Data Systems, and Corona settled [1]. IBM sued Handwell Corporation, and Handwell settled [1]. IBM sued Eagle Computer Inc., and Eagle settled [2]. [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=gy4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA15&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=true https://books.google.com/books?id=gy4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA15&pg=P... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/22/business/eagle-ibm-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/22/business/eagle-ibm-settle...
- pjmlp 7y ago
  They were, IBM failed to sue Compaq due to the way they did their reverse engineering. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-computers-skirted-ibms-patents-and-gave-rise-to-eisa/ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp... IBM tried to regain control with the PS/2 architecture, but it failed to do so, and only the mice connectors survived. Big difference in regards to legal process. Siding with the company that created a fork in the Java eco-system, just like Microsoft did with J++, just because "Do no evil", without legal understanding, is just typical. Like wishing for IBM to sue Oracle for SQL, without understanding unlike the way Google screwed Sun and the Java community, there was eventually an agreement between both companies, because hating Oracle is cool in some circles.
  - higerordermap 7y ago
    I can see hating Google is cool in more circles. There is also a circle that mourns over rise over open source software and evangelizes proprietary software out of pure prejudice.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      The rise of non-copyleft has us covered.
wyqydsyq 7y ago
Man I would absolutely LOVE to see IBM suing the pants off of Oracle and sending those muppets into insolvency. I don't think there is a single company in the software industry more widely hated than Oracle today, it seems to me they have devolved into mere patent trolls because they couldn't figure out a way to adapt their business model.
- dralley 7y ago
  Time to send in the Nazgûl https://lotrgames.fandom.com/wiki/Nazgul#Behind_the_Scenes https://lotrgames.fandom.com/wiki/Nazgul#Behind_the_Scenes
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > The term Nazgûl has been used to refer to IBM's cadre of lawyers, with whom it has been said that IBM can blacken the sky - particularly with reference to the SCO v. IBM lawsuit because they supposedly never sleep, are utterly ruthless, and are completely loyal servants to their master. I thought it was SCO who were the bad guys in that one?
    - kick 7y ago
      There were no good guys in that one. There was a bad guy who was wrong, and a bad guy who was initially right but then tried playing the exact same game on the other guy.
emilecantin 7y ago
I think if Oracle wins, the best thing that could happen is IBM immediately suing for infringment on SQL. And since Oracle built their whole business on the SQL standard, IBM should ask for an amount high enough that it's sure to bankrupt Oracle. I believe that's a fair price to pay for breaking the software industry.
- justicezyx 7y ago
  That is underestimating the so-called old guards alliance. There old school IT providers are quite conscious about their imminent irrelevance giving the trend in society and tech. They know very well who are their common enemy.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    IBM has a lot of money, Oracle has a lot of money. If IBM took a large chunk of Oracle's money, they could survive for decades more without selling anything.
  - bhaak 7y ago
    How much of an IT provider is IBM today? They certainly don't produce hardware anymore. I thought IBM is mostly a consultant company now and the goal of a consultant company is to make money. Considering that I don't think IBM and Oracle would be on the same page on who they regard as enemy.
    - eklavya 7y ago
      "the goal of a consultant company is to make money" As opposed to which company ?
      - quaquaqua1 7y ago
        HP's hardware operation
      - bhaak 7y ago
        Don't take sentence without the context. I meant to say that IBM likely doesn't have any deterrents to sue Oracle as they are no longer on the same page with regards to their business markets. Weakening Oracle won't affect IBM's business.
deanCommie 7y ago
I'm split. IBM wanted companies to embrace SQL - because then people implement applications already compatible with their database product, and conceptually could migrate without rewriting their applications. Amazon wanted companies to embrace S3 - for the same reason. Or maybe they didn't, but they decided that the API was the least significant compelling part of their product - that people would still choose S3 regardless of whether other storage offerings had the same API - for the cost, and durability. Sun wanted Google to use Java. Because more developers using the language, regardless of the underlying implementation is better for the entire ecosystem. Oracle doesn't. So to some degree i do feel like consent matters here. It doesn't matter if Oracle copied Amazon's S3 API illegally if Amazon doesn't care enough to pursue it. Finally, I hate arguments that say "It's just the API". We all know a good API makes or breaks developer tools. Ultimately, I feel like it goes without question that a decision in Oracle's favour will cause irrevocable damage to the industry and permit all sorts of bad actors to start looking to purchase ownership to APIs just so they could sue those they consider infringers. But I can't help but feel that ultimately Oracle has a point :(
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- teruakohatu 7y ago
  > But I can't help but feel that ultimately Oracle has a point :( Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. If it was a patent then at least the term would expire, but copyright lasts a very, very long time. Car companies would love to copyright mechanical interfaces and so prevent anyone from making aftermarket parts.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. The purpose of copyright, according to the constitution is "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts". So generally, things should be copyrightable if granting the copyright results in more and higher quality work. If APIs are indeed protected, there it is plausible argument that we will have more of them and they will be of higher quality.
neilparikh 7y ago
I have a question that's slightly off on a tangent. The project for some compilers courses is implementing a compiler for a subset for Java. Would the current ruling mean that doing the project is copyright infringement?
- kccqzy 7y ago
  I doubt so. There's fair use. And educational institutions tend to use this fair use exception a lot.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > The project for some compilers courses is implementing a compiler for a subset for Java. Would the current ruling mean that doing the project is copyright infringement? Fair use would probably protect you because you're doing it for non-commercial educational purposes. But further, this lawsuit is not over the Java language, but it's libraries.
- gpm 7y ago
  Probably not, but if you're worried derive your work from the OpenJDK implementation that has a valid GPL + linking exception license granted by Oracle, and comply with the license (which basically just means licensing your course project GPL + linking exception and supplying source code whenever you supply a binary).
hyperpallium 7y ago
Copying a functional spec - like for SQL - is fine. But copying implementation code is not (unless that's the only way it can be implemented). Unethicalprotip: publish proprietary source to bait copying. Then sue.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > Copying a functional spec - like for SQL - is fine. But copying implementation code is not (unless that's the only way it can be implemented). Why are specs fundamentally different than implementations?
  - wtallis 7y ago
    I think by "Copying a functional spec" he meant to say implementing someone else's functional spec, rather than just re-publishing it. So that what's being copied is not the copyrightable text of the spec, but the non-copyrightable abstract ideas described by the spec.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > I think by "Copying a functional spec" he meant to say implementing someone else's functional spec, rather than just re-publishing it. So that what's being copied is not the copyrightable text of the spec, but the non-copyrightable abstract ideas described by the spec. Implementing an API spec is not just using the "abstract ideas" in the spec. It requires copying the specific text of the API: a function named DoSomething will incompatible with one named do_something. I don't think that's a valid way to distinguish copying APIs and implementation. On a purely theoretical basis, I do think APIs could be copyrightable, I don't think there is a valid way to distinguish them from implementation. The main argument against copyrighting APIs is practical: everyone has been doing it for decades, and changing the status-quo will be disruptive. Another practical reason is that copyrighting APIs will decrease competition by impeding companies from creating better drop-in competitor products to established players. But this is really an argument against all software copyright, not just API copyrights.
- 7y ago
ggm 7y ago
two things 1) the comparison may be inapplicable. The case in hand does not rise or fall on hypocrisy. I am a bad actor does not forbid me pursuing a law case based on the law I break myself in another matter. 2) IBM has at least three strategies a) leave alone: let sleeping dogs lie b) pursue oracle but settle for cash or in-kind or IPR swap or RAND, or some outcome which advantages them (Redhat?) but nobody else c) be an advocate for a movement and take a posture in the wider interest. What do you think is more likely?
kiadimoondi 7y ago
I think there's a case to be made that there's nothing novel in an API itself (emphasis on the interface). The novelty comes from the implementation, whereby competition actually kicks in (novel algorithms, data structures, storage techniques, etc.). But maybe I'm missing something? I come from a distributed systems background, so my bias is likely titled.
- rk06 7y ago
  yep, APIs are a work of art. the API you chose would vary a lot by the individual who designed (and Acceptance tests they were required to pass) as such, there is a novelty in them. whether it is worth patenting or copyrighting is separate matter.
  - kiadimoondi 7y ago
    I agree there's nuance to the issue, and thst's where the argument is to be made. But I think it'd be a bad faith application of copyright or patent law, as your competitive edge largely doesn't come from API design but the product being interfaced with.
  - GoblinSlayer 7y ago
    Then you find out java.time copies posix. Or is it convergence?
- gpm 7y ago
  Naming decisions are pretty inherently creative, I don't this this argument works. "Stack", "push" and "pop" are obviously novel imho. The inventor of the stack api could have instead called them "LIFO", "Put" and "Take" for instance.
  - kiadimoondi 7y ago
    I agree, I'd never argue that there isn't creativity involved. It's essentially language. And someone said before that there's a base level of competency involved in making API decisions. It's more the argument of what's actually making you money or providing competitive edge. I can see edge cases where, with matching feature sets for two competing products, the API matters a great deal. API and functionality definitely influence each other, I just see it as a weak argument that copyright is broken when the interface is copied, not the implementation.
mqus 7y ago
If Google wins, will that weaken the AGPL? Doesn't the AGPL pretty much copyright APIs?
- cyphar 7y ago
  No, the GNU AGPL doesn't have anything to do with copyright of APIs question (at least, no more than any other copyright license given these court decisions). After all, the GNU AGPL was published in 2007 -- long before this whole legal battle started and even before Android itself was released. The GNU AGPL has additional restrictions that require redistribution of the source code under the GNU AGPL to users which access the software over a computer network (AFAIK those particular restrictions have not yet been tested in court, so it's entirely possible that they're unenforceable).
- belorn 7y ago
  GPL (and particularly gplv3) was designed to follow the scope of copyright in what ever country it get used in. If a country choose to have a very wide definition of derivative work then that is the rule that GPL will use, while in an other country it can be much more narrower. This case is also about fair use. Like all copyright licenses fair use give people exceptions when the exclusive right of copyright can be broken.
cmiles74 7y ago
I fully expect the Supreme Court to rule as narrowly as they can on this case. As others have pointed out, to rule otherwise could potentially disrupt the entire software industry. "Alternatively, the Supreme Court could hold that software interfaces are sometimes eligible for copyrights but that Google's copying falls under the fair use doctrine. This would save Google from writing Oracle a 10-figure check, but it could still drag the software industry into a legal quagmire."
- gpm 7y ago
  I'm hoping for a ruling that can be basically summed up as "The merger doctrine is evaluated at the time the copying takes place, therefore we reverse the federal circuit and don't have to decide the rest of this nonsense". Explanation: The merger doctrine is the doctrine that if there is only one way to write something it isn't copyrightable/copyright infringement. Alsup (the original judge) interpreted this as being interpreted at the time Google copied the API, at which point in time there was only one way to write an API compatible with existing java programs, thereby killing Oracle's case. The federal circuit reversed based on the idea that it should be interpreted at the time of the creation of the copyrighted work, at which time there was no reason to favor calling something "java.lang.String" instead of "java.std.String" and so on. Fair use is a lot more complicated to deal with than the merger doctrine. Ruling based on it will almost certainly result in a lot more pointless court cases as people debate whether or not this instance is fair use.
jiggawatts 7y ago
Whenever I hear Oracle mentioned it reminds me that it's once again time to re-watch the "Never make the mistake of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison" rant. https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2085 https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2085
- sork_hn 7y ago
  Wow that was enjoyable. I had never seen that before.
slowhand09 7y ago
Oracle implemented similar technology at a time when organic growth was good for both companies. More technologist adopting SQL meant more sales for both companies. Oracle implementations on IBM hardware were and still are pretty common. I think IBM had no good reason to shoot a competitor that likely was helping their bottom line via adoption and popularization of database technology. The industry and the technology were evolving. Squashing it would have been a bad move for them at the time.
pron 7y ago
There are some very basic elements of this case that this article (and most others) miss, which makes me wonder if they'd read the relevant court documents at all. That Oracle is "trying to copyright APIs" is a popular (and biased) framing of the case, but this is not at all what they're actually saying. As I understand the filings, they're saying that if there is some already-copyrighted work and you copy substantial portions of it, those portions aren't exempt from copyright if they're "declaration code" (although the copying, as always, could potentially be fair use). In other words, it's not a new kind of copyright, but about exemption from established copyright. So regardless of whether SQL is an API, unless anyone copied substantial portions of copyrighted code from IBM, this case -- as it actually is, not as it's presented by some media outlets -- is irrelevant. It is hard to find any popular blog post that faithfully represents the sides' claims, so it's best to read what they actually are in one of these locations: * https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-956.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... * https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/google-llc-v-oracle-america-inc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/google-llc-v-ora...
- Natsu 7y ago
  Yeah, but Google copied only "declaration code" (i.e. the class structure of Java to make it compatible). There are a few other lines, yes, but those came about due to being utterly trivial code that looks more like two people choosing the same trivial implementation randomly from what I recall. Also, regardless of intent, this would have the effect of making APIs copyrightable. That would be terrible for compatibility and would destroy the viability of a lot of work for no good reason at all, unleashing a lot of copyright parasites to go around suing for trivial nonsense. I'm sorry, but this is basically a phone book that can be used by machines of where to find the code that does X. It shouldn't be copyrightable any more than the actual phone book and the structure was copied only to make it compatible. It'd be like suing everyone for making similar electrical plugs, ignoring how they have to meet certain requirements to actually fit in the socket.
  - pron 7y ago
    > this would have the effect of making APIs copyrightable No, only if there has been some copying of substantial portions of copyrighted works. Talking about analogies is irrelevant if you're unfamiliar with the legal framework that determines the suitability of the analogies. For example, one could claim that copyrighting code is "just like" copyrighting algorithms, yet it is established that code is copyrighted (but not patentable) and algorithms are not copyrightable (but are patentable), and the legal system is perfectly fine with that. Why? Because there are important distinctions here, and the question is not whether things are "the same" in the eyes of developers, but whether they're the same in the eyes of IP law. If you don't understand the legal distinction between code and algorithm, then you're missing the most essential background material. As to the rest of your arguments, the relevant ones are the subject of this case. I suggest you read the actual arguments; they're quite interesting.

168 points by Bella-Xiang 7y ago

Oracle seems to have partnered with, surprise, Breitbart, to present their side on this case. Source: https://twitter.com/joshbloch/status/1237518298922745861 https://twitter.com/joshbloch/status/1237518298922745861

jshevek 7y ago
Breitbart's coverage does not appear severely biased, in this case: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/21/report-trump-backs-oracle-in-legal-battle-with-google/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/21/report-trump-backs... (I suppose just saying "Trump backs.." can be a signal indicating what the Trump supporting readers ought to think. OTOH, the same language on CNN has a similar effect in the opposite direction.)

0xcde4c3db 7y ago

I'm not sure I'll ever properly get my head around this case. On one hand, it's certainly possible to make an intellectually sound argument that APIs are eligible for copyright. On the other hand, such an argument seems to imply that IBM PC clones, MS-DOS, and Linux have all been infringing from the start and it's just that everybody has been too timid to actually enforce their API copyrights over the course of decades where there were plenty of affiliated deep pockets to raid. And that seems really hard to swallow.

staticautomatic 7y ago
Except Oracle hasn't claimed a copyright on its API's. It claims a copyright on their structure and organization
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  That's an effectively non-replaceable subset of the API. So in almost all cases that matter, it's equivalent to a copyright on "the API".
  - niftich 7y ago
    In 886 F.3d 1179 (2018) [1][2], the Fed. Cir. noted that: "62 classes (and some of their methods), spread across three packages within the Java API library, must be used. Otherwise the language itself will fail." "On remand, the parties stipulated that only 170 lines of code were necessary to write in the Java language. It is undisputed, however, that Google copied 11,500 lines of code — 11,330 more lines than necessary to write in Java. That Google copied more than necessary weighs against fair use." [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10745164935676158704 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107451649356761... [2] https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180327178 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180327178
    - hyperpallium 7y ago
      TFA: Copyright law specifically excludes "systems" and "methods of operation" from copyright protection. Sounds like a "clean room implementation" is needed, and that Google copied more than what was needed for inter-op. If so, Google might lose the case, but the legal precedent would be you can copy apis but not implemention (unless that's the only way to implement them).
    - jayd16 7y ago
      What? Java String alone has close to 100 members and even without function bodies would be over 170 lines unless you put every method on a single line.
      - niftich 7y ago
        Here's some additional context in from a lower court: Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2016) [1]: "Oracle has portrayed the Java programming language as distinct from the Java API library, insisting that only the language itself was free for all to use. Turns out, however, that in order to write at all in the Java programming language, 62 classes (and some of their methods), spread across three packages within the Java API library, must be used. Otherwise, the language itself will fail. The 62 "necessary" classes are mixed with "unnecessary" ones in the Java API library and it takes experts to comb them out. As a result, Oracle has now stipulated before the jury that it was fair to use the 62 "necessary" classes given that the Java programming language itself was free and open to use without a license" "That the 62 "necessary" classes reside without any identification as such within the Java API library (rather than reside within the programming language) supports Google's contention that the Java API library is simply an extension of the programming language itself and helps explain why some view the Java API declarations as free and open for use as the programming language itself. At least to the extent of the 62 "necessary" classes, Oracle agrees." [1] https://casetext.com/case/oracle-am-inc-v-google-inc-19#N196796 https://casetext.com/case/oracle-am-inc-v-google-inc-19#N196...
wtallis 7y ago
The idea that so much existing infrastructure would infringe on this new kind of copyright is tough to accept, but at least it's very straightforward in a way, with brutal direct consequences. What I have more of a problem with is that we have no clear precedents for how API copyright will work in practice if it is suddenly foisted upon the real world. What does it mean for an API to be licensed under the GPLv2, or any other copyright license that was written with source code and object code in mind but not APIs? How will we determine which license agreements executed long ago should be retroactively considered to include or exclude the APIs? How many industry standards will have to be assessed for whether the relevant APIs are available under FRAND licensing terms as the relevant patents usually are? Is there a distinction between providing vs using an API, for the purposes of determining copyright infringement?
- speedplane 7y ago
  > The idea that so much existing infrastructure would infringe on this new kind of copyright is tough to accept, but at least it's very straightforward in a way, with brutal direct consequences. I don't anticipate a doom-and-gloom scenario if APIs were all-of-a-sudden copyrightable. Today, open source software is backed by powerful companies, and there is far less lock-in to any particular set of software functionality. The likely outcome is that big tech companies would just cross-license their basic APIs like Win32, SQL, NTFS, POSIX-like functionality, and other basic interface layers. Today in 2020, the value is not in the interface, but data. Facebook probably wouldn't care if you created a clone that used the same API structure. But if you started imported their user data, you could expect a lawsuit.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    Your best case scenario is that hardly anyone attempts to follow in the footsteps of a resounding Oracle success, and that everyone in the industry is saddled with huge potential liabilities until a massive multi-year relicensing project can be completed to confirm who is committed to never trying Oracle's tactics when they fall on hard times. That is a doom and gloom scenario for anyone who takes legal threats seriously and doesn't have an IBM-class mutually assured destruction IP portfolio. It's postulating a series of events that leaves us with most of the software industry intact, but for the most part would still be a scenario where the only true winners are the lawyers.
hyperpallium 7y ago
I believe there were lawsuits over IBM clones, way back when, amd the clones won, based on interoperability. Apis are software, not hardware, but you'd expect this to be the same, because of the same underlying policy considerations. Sometimes courts uphold the letter of the law, but say the legislature should change it.
- jclulow 7y ago
  I believe the substance of those suits was on the copyright protection IBM were due on the ROM BIOS image, which was the most substantial piece of IP developed by IBM for the PC. In the end, clones won because the BIOS call interface could be replicated without directly copying that software artefact -- merely its behaviour -- and so actually seems pretty relevant to API copyright issues generally.
- niftich 7y ago
  IBM sued Corona Data Systems, and Corona settled [1]. IBM sued Handwell Corporation, and Handwell settled [1]. IBM sued Eagle Computer Inc., and Eagle settled [2]. [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=gy4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA15&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=true https://books.google.com/books?id=gy4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA15&pg=P... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/22/business/eagle-ibm-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/22/business/eagle-ibm-settle...
pjmlp 7y ago
They were, IBM failed to sue Compaq due to the way they did their reverse engineering. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-computers-skirted-ibms-patents-and-gave-rise-to-eisa/ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp... IBM tried to regain control with the PS/2 architecture, but it failed to do so, and only the mice connectors survived. Big difference in regards to legal process. Siding with the company that created a fork in the Java eco-system, just like Microsoft did with J++, just because "Do no evil", without legal understanding, is just typical. Like wishing for IBM to sue Oracle for SQL, without understanding unlike the way Google screwed Sun and the Java community, there was eventually an agreement between both companies, because hating Oracle is cool in some circles.
- higerordermap 7y ago
  I can see hating Google is cool in more circles. There is also a circle that mourns over rise over open source software and evangelizes proprietary software out of pure prejudice.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    The rise of non-copyleft has us covered.

wyqydsyq 7y ago

Man I would absolutely LOVE to see IBM suing the pants off of Oracle and sending those muppets into insolvency. I don't think there is a single company in the software industry more widely hated than Oracle today, it seems to me they have devolved into mere patent trolls because they couldn't figure out a way to adapt their business model.

dralley 7y ago
Time to send in the Nazgûl https://lotrgames.fandom.com/wiki/Nazgul#Behind_the_Scenes https://lotrgames.fandom.com/wiki/Nazgul#Behind_the_Scenes
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > The term Nazgûl has been used to refer to IBM's cadre of lawyers, with whom it has been said that IBM can blacken the sky - particularly with reference to the SCO v. IBM lawsuit because they supposedly never sleep, are utterly ruthless, and are completely loyal servants to their master. I thought it was SCO who were the bad guys in that one?
  - kick 7y ago
    There were no good guys in that one. There was a bad guy who was wrong, and a bad guy who was initially right but then tried playing the exact same game on the other guy.

emilecantin 7y ago

I think if Oracle wins, the best thing that could happen is IBM immediately suing for infringment on SQL. And since Oracle built their whole business on the SQL standard, IBM should ask for an amount high enough that it's sure to bankrupt Oracle. I believe that's a fair price to pay for breaking the software industry.

justicezyx 7y ago
That is underestimating the so-called old guards alliance. There old school IT providers are quite conscious about their imminent irrelevance giving the trend in society and tech. They know very well who are their common enemy.
- adrianN 7y ago
  IBM has a lot of money, Oracle has a lot of money. If IBM took a large chunk of Oracle's money, they could survive for decades more without selling anything.
- bhaak 7y ago
  How much of an IT provider is IBM today? They certainly don't produce hardware anymore. I thought IBM is mostly a consultant company now and the goal of a consultant company is to make money. Considering that I don't think IBM and Oracle would be on the same page on who they regard as enemy.
  - eklavya 7y ago
    "the goal of a consultant company is to make money" As opposed to which company ?
    - quaquaqua1 7y ago
      HP's hardware operation
    - bhaak 7y ago
      Don't take sentence without the context. I meant to say that IBM likely doesn't have any deterrents to sue Oracle as they are no longer on the same page with regards to their business markets. Weakening Oracle won't affect IBM's business.

deanCommie 7y ago

I'm split. IBM wanted companies to embrace SQL - because then people implement applications already compatible with their database product, and conceptually could migrate without rewriting their applications. Amazon wanted companies to embrace S3 - for the same reason. Or maybe they didn't, but they decided that the API was the least significant compelling part of their product - that people would still choose S3 regardless of whether other storage offerings had the same API - for the cost, and durability. Sun wanted Google to use Java. Because more developers using the language, regardless of the underlying implementation is better for the entire ecosystem. Oracle doesn't. So to some degree i do feel like consent matters here. It doesn't matter if Oracle copied Amazon's S3 API illegally if Amazon doesn't care enough to pursue it. Finally, I hate arguments that say "It's just the API". We all know a good API makes or breaks developer tools. Ultimately, I feel like it goes without question that a decision in Oracle's favour will cause irrevocable damage to the industry and permit all sorts of bad actors to start looking to purchase ownership to APIs just so they could sue those they consider infringers. But I can't help but feel that ultimately Oracle has a point :(

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
teruakohatu 7y ago
> But I can't help but feel that ultimately Oracle has a point :( Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. If it was a patent then at least the term would expire, but copyright lasts a very, very long time. Car companies would love to copyright mechanical interfaces and so prevent anyone from making aftermarket parts.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. The purpose of copyright, according to the constitution is "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts". So generally, things should be copyrightable if granting the copyright results in more and higher quality work. If APIs are indeed protected, there it is plausible argument that we will have more of them and they will be of higher quality.

neilparikh 7y ago

I have a question that's slightly off on a tangent. The project for some compilers courses is implementing a compiler for a subset for Java. Would the current ruling mean that doing the project is copyright infringement?

kccqzy 7y ago
I doubt so. There's fair use. And educational institutions tend to use this fair use exception a lot.
speedplane 7y ago
> The project for some compilers courses is implementing a compiler for a subset for Java. Would the current ruling mean that doing the project is copyright infringement? Fair use would probably protect you because you're doing it for non-commercial educational purposes. But further, this lawsuit is not over the Java language, but it's libraries.
gpm 7y ago
Probably not, but if you're worried derive your work from the OpenJDK implementation that has a valid GPL + linking exception license granted by Oracle, and comply with the license (which basically just means licensing your course project GPL + linking exception and supplying source code whenever you supply a binary).

hyperpallium 7y ago

Copying a functional spec - like for SQL - is fine. But copying implementation code is not (unless that's the only way it can be implemented). Unethicalprotip: publish proprietary source to bait copying. Then sue.

speedplane 7y ago
> Copying a functional spec - like for SQL - is fine. But copying implementation code is not (unless that's the only way it can be implemented). Why are specs fundamentally different than implementations?
- wtallis 7y ago
  I think by "Copying a functional spec" he meant to say implementing someone else's functional spec, rather than just re-publishing it. So that what's being copied is not the copyrightable text of the spec, but the non-copyrightable abstract ideas described by the spec.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > I think by "Copying a functional spec" he meant to say implementing someone else's functional spec, rather than just re-publishing it. So that what's being copied is not the copyrightable text of the spec, but the non-copyrightable abstract ideas described by the spec. Implementing an API spec is not just using the "abstract ideas" in the spec. It requires copying the specific text of the API: a function named DoSomething will incompatible with one named do_something. I don't think that's a valid way to distinguish copying APIs and implementation. On a purely theoretical basis, I do think APIs could be copyrightable, I don't think there is a valid way to distinguish them from implementation. The main argument against copyrighting APIs is practical: everyone has been doing it for decades, and changing the status-quo will be disruptive. Another practical reason is that copyrighting APIs will decrease competition by impeding companies from creating better drop-in competitor products to established players. But this is really an argument against all software copyright, not just API copyrights.
7y ago

ggm 7y ago

two things 1) the comparison may be inapplicable. The case in hand does not rise or fall on hypocrisy. I am a bad actor does not forbid me pursuing a law case based on the law I break myself in another matter. 2) IBM has at least three strategies a) leave alone: let sleeping dogs lie b) pursue oracle but settle for cash or in-kind or IPR swap or RAND, or some outcome which advantages them (Redhat?) but nobody else c) be an advocate for a movement and take a posture in the wider interest. What do you think is more likely?

kiadimoondi 7y ago

I think there's a case to be made that there's nothing novel in an API itself (emphasis on the interface). The novelty comes from the implementation, whereby competition actually kicks in (novel algorithms, data structures, storage techniques, etc.). But maybe I'm missing something? I come from a distributed systems background, so my bias is likely titled.

rk06 7y ago
yep, APIs are a work of art. the API you chose would vary a lot by the individual who designed (and Acceptance tests they were required to pass) as such, there is a novelty in them. whether it is worth patenting or copyrighting is separate matter.
- kiadimoondi 7y ago
  I agree there's nuance to the issue, and thst's where the argument is to be made. But I think it'd be a bad faith application of copyright or patent law, as your competitive edge largely doesn't come from API design but the product being interfaced with.
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  Then you find out java.time copies posix. Or is it convergence?
gpm 7y ago
Naming decisions are pretty inherently creative, I don't this this argument works. "Stack", "push" and "pop" are obviously novel imho. The inventor of the stack api could have instead called them "LIFO", "Put" and "Take" for instance.
- kiadimoondi 7y ago
  I agree, I'd never argue that there isn't creativity involved. It's essentially language. And someone said before that there's a base level of competency involved in making API decisions. It's more the argument of what's actually making you money or providing competitive edge. I can see edge cases where, with matching feature sets for two competing products, the API matters a great deal. API and functionality definitely influence each other, I just see it as a weak argument that copyright is broken when the interface is copied, not the implementation.

mqus 7y ago

If Google wins, will that weaken the AGPL? Doesn't the AGPL pretty much copyright APIs?

cyphar 7y ago
No, the GNU AGPL doesn't have anything to do with copyright of APIs question (at least, no more than any other copyright license given these court decisions). After all, the GNU AGPL was published in 2007 -- long before this whole legal battle started and even before Android itself was released. The GNU AGPL has additional restrictions that require redistribution of the source code under the GNU AGPL to users which access the software over a computer network (AFAIK those particular restrictions have not yet been tested in court, so it's entirely possible that they're unenforceable).
belorn 7y ago
GPL (and particularly gplv3) was designed to follow the scope of copyright in what ever country it get used in. If a country choose to have a very wide definition of derivative work then that is the rule that GPL will use, while in an other country it can be much more narrower. This case is also about fair use. Like all copyright licenses fair use give people exceptions when the exclusive right of copyright can be broken.

cmiles74 7y ago

I fully expect the Supreme Court to rule as narrowly as they can on this case. As others have pointed out, to rule otherwise could potentially disrupt the entire software industry. "Alternatively, the Supreme Court could hold that software interfaces are sometimes eligible for copyrights but that Google's copying falls under the fair use doctrine. This would save Google from writing Oracle a 10-figure check, but it could still drag the software industry into a legal quagmire."

gpm 7y ago
I'm hoping for a ruling that can be basically summed up as "The merger doctrine is evaluated at the time the copying takes place, therefore we reverse the federal circuit and don't have to decide the rest of this nonsense". Explanation: The merger doctrine is the doctrine that if there is only one way to write something it isn't copyrightable/copyright infringement. Alsup (the original judge) interpreted this as being interpreted at the time Google copied the API, at which point in time there was only one way to write an API compatible with existing java programs, thereby killing Oracle's case. The federal circuit reversed based on the idea that it should be interpreted at the time of the creation of the copyrighted work, at which time there was no reason to favor calling something "java.lang.String" instead of "java.std.String" and so on. Fair use is a lot more complicated to deal with than the merger doctrine. Ruling based on it will almost certainly result in a lot more pointless court cases as people debate whether or not this instance is fair use.

jiggawatts 7y ago

Whenever I hear Oracle mentioned it reminds me that it's once again time to re-watch the "Never make the mistake of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison" rant. https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2085 https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2085

sork_hn 7y ago
Wow that was enjoyable. I had never seen that before.

slowhand09 7y ago

Oracle implemented similar technology at a time when organic growth was good for both companies. More technologist adopting SQL meant more sales for both companies. Oracle implementations on IBM hardware were and still are pretty common. I think IBM had no good reason to shoot a competitor that likely was helping their bottom line via adoption and popularization of database technology. The industry and the technology were evolving. Squashing it would have been a bad move for them at the time.

pron 7y ago

There are some very basic elements of this case that this article (and most others) miss, which makes me wonder if they'd read the relevant court documents at all. That Oracle is "trying to copyright APIs" is a popular (and biased) framing of the case, but this is not at all what they're actually saying. As I understand the filings, they're saying that if there is some already-copyrighted work and you copy substantial portions of it, those portions aren't exempt from copyright if they're "declaration code" (although the copying, as always, could potentially be fair use). In other words, it's not a new kind of copyright, but about exemption from established copyright. So regardless of whether SQL is an API, unless anyone copied substantial portions of copyrighted code from IBM, this case -- as it actually is, not as it's presented by some media outlets -- is irrelevant. It is hard to find any popular blog post that faithfully represents the sides' claims, so it's best to read what they actually are in one of these locations: * https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-956.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... * https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/google-llc-v-oracle-america-inc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/google-llc-v-ora...

Natsu 7y ago
Yeah, but Google copied only "declaration code" (i.e. the class structure of Java to make it compatible). There are a few other lines, yes, but those came about due to being utterly trivial code that looks more like two people choosing the same trivial implementation randomly from what I recall. Also, regardless of intent, this would have the effect of making APIs copyrightable. That would be terrible for compatibility and would destroy the viability of a lot of work for no good reason at all, unleashing a lot of copyright parasites to go around suing for trivial nonsense. I'm sorry, but this is basically a phone book that can be used by machines of where to find the code that does X. It shouldn't be copyrightable any more than the actual phone book and the structure was copied only to make it compatible. It'd be like suing everyone for making similar electrical plugs, ignoring how they have to meet certain requirements to actually fit in the socket.
- pron 7y ago
  > this would have the effect of making APIs copyrightable No, only if there has been some copying of substantial portions of copyrighted works. Talking about analogies is irrelevant if you're unfamiliar with the legal framework that determines the suitability of the analogies. For example, one could claim that copyrighting code is "just like" copyrighting algorithms, yet it is established that code is copyrighted (but not patentable) and algorithms are not copyrightable (but are patentable), and the legal system is perfectly fine with that. Why? Because there are important distinctions here, and the question is not whether things are "the same" in the eyes of developers, but whether they're the same in the eyes of IP law. If you don't understand the legal distinction between code and algorithm, then you're missing the most essential background material. As to the rest of your arguments, the relevant ones are the subject of this case. I suggest you read the actual arguments; they're quite interesting.