5 ms·

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 eligib

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...
        jayd16 7y ago
        >Oracle has portrayed the Java programming language as distinct from the Java API library I don't suppose it will persuade you that String (and many other classes) are in the Java.lang package.
        niftich 7y ago
        > I don't suppose it will persuade you that String (and many other classes) are in the Java.lang package. From the prior source [1], immediately below the previously-quoted text: "Trial Exhibit 980, The Java Application Programming Interface, Volume 1, is a book that covers four packages and refers to them as the "core packages." According to the back cover of the book, these four packages "are the foundation of the Java language. These libraries include java.lang, java.io, java.util, and java.net. These are the general purpose libraries fundamental to every Java program." [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
  You're referring to a distinction that's largely a peculiarity of how technological terminology has been shoehorned into an ad-hoc legal framework; there's no real deep insight here. If you ask the lawyers in this case what "an API" (singular) is, they'll give you a definition that's more on par with what a developer would call a single function/method signature. If you ask a developer to name some common APIs he uses, he'll list off named collections of functions, and such collections in the abstract are pretty much what Oracle's suing over. So when a developer rather than a lawyer says that Oracle's suing over "the Java API", they're trying to convey the correct meaning, and using the right terminology for the context. "Structure, sequence and organization of APIs" sounds much more like a legal test (in the same vein as the factors considered in determining fair use) rather than a decent name for the kind of creative work at issue.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    You've conveniently avoided mentioning the most significant question, which is whether the implementation was different.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      I'm pretty sure that's not actually in question any more. And it's quite orthogonal to the question of whether it's appropriate to simplify "copyright of structure, sequence and organization of the API" down to "copyright of the API".
      - staticautomatic 7y ago
        I don't think "copied the declarations" and "copied the declarations and implementation" are interchangeable or generally understood to be interchangeable. If you told me someone "copied your API", I would absolutely assume that they'd copied the implementation and not just the declarations or the way the declarations were organized/named. The "SSO" language is not an arbitrary or legal distinction. It is a technical one that is necessary to convey the exclusion of the implementation precisely because people would otherwise assume we were also talking about the implementation when we say "API".
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.

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...
      - jayd16 7y ago
        >Oracle has portrayed the Java programming language as distinct from the Java API library I don't suppose it will persuade you that String (and many other classes) are in the Java.lang package.
        niftich 7y ago
        > I don't suppose it will persuade you that String (and many other classes) are in the Java.lang package. From the prior source [1], immediately below the previously-quoted text: "Trial Exhibit 980, The Java Application Programming Interface, Volume 1, is a book that covers four packages and refers to them as the "core packages." According to the back cover of the book, these four packages "are the foundation of the Java language. These libraries include java.lang, java.io, java.util, and java.net. These are the general purpose libraries fundamental to every Java program." [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
You're referring to a distinction that's largely a peculiarity of how technological terminology has been shoehorned into an ad-hoc legal framework; there's no real deep insight here. If you ask the lawyers in this case what "an API" (singular) is, they'll give you a definition that's more on par with what a developer would call a single function/method signature. If you ask a developer to name some common APIs he uses, he'll list off named collections of functions, and such collections in the abstract are pretty much what Oracle's suing over. So when a developer rather than a lawyer says that Oracle's suing over "the Java API", they're trying to convey the correct meaning, and using the right terminology for the context. "Structure, sequence and organization of APIs" sounds much more like a legal test (in the same vein as the factors considered in determining fair use) rather than a decent name for the kind of creative work at issue.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  You've conveniently avoided mentioning the most significant question, which is whether the implementation was different.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's not actually in question any more. And it's quite orthogonal to the question of whether it's appropriate to simplify "copyright of structure, sequence and organization of the API" down to "copyright of the API".
    - staticautomatic 7y ago
      I don't think "copied the declarations" and "copied the declarations and implementation" are interchangeable or generally understood to be interchangeable. If you told me someone "copied your API", I would absolutely assume that they'd copied the implementation and not just the declarations or the way the declarations were organized/named. The "SSO" language is not an arbitrary or legal distinction. It is a technical one that is necessary to convey the exclusion of the implementation precisely because people would otherwise assume we were also talking about the implementation when we say "API".

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.