4 ms·

Or it will create api compatibility layers (shims).

by yetihehe 6y ago

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Wouldn't the compatibility layer be infringing copyright?
- Spivak 6y ago
  This is where I think a lot of people are talking past this case. If you use the API surface area for the purposes of interoperability with existing software then you're covered and it's not infringement. If you use the API surface area for your own software because you like the design, copying it is easier than coming up with something new, or you want to provide a familiar programming environment to developers then you're looking at infringing.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    > If you use the API surface area for the purposes of interoperability with existing software But wasn't that one of Google's original goals for Android? Making porting existing Java apps easy?
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Google is making this case, we'll see if the judges buy it. Just because porting Java apps to Android is easier because Google copied the API doesn't suddenly absolve them when it's Google's intention that will decide this case.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > when it's Google's intention that will decide this case. Why do you presuppose to know the legal rule that the Supreme Court will articulate in its decision? I mean, you seem to presuppose that the Court will uphold the Federal Circuit on all contested questions of law and only reconsider whether the decision on the facts is reasonable, which is...mighty presumptuous. It's quite conceivable that Google could win on a more fundamental ground, since the question of whether the API is even protected by copyright or unprotected as a functional element (which also does not turn on Google’s intent) is a love issue in the appeal. They win on that, and the Court doesn't have to touch anything else. Even if they do need to address the fair use question because Google loses on copyright ability, the Court a lot will turn on the standard of review and the Seventh Amendment as to whether the Court is really probing Google's intent (de novo review) or merely probing whether any reasonable jury could have concluded that the use was fair, as the actual trial jury did here, preserving the right to jury trial. I would expect the latter, the Federal Circuit seems to have gone completely off the rails invoking de novo review to overturn the jury verdict.
        ghaff 6y ago
        That seems to be what a lot of legal folks are speculating. That an 8-person court will find essentially technical legal reasons to overturn the appeal and essentially punt on making a major copyright ruling one way or the other.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        A ruling overturning the CAFC on the basis that fair use is a fact issue for the jury not subject to de novo review on appeal would still be a major (though not transformative, since outside of the CAFC in this case that seems to be how it has historically been treated) copyright decision.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > If you use the API surface area for the purposes of interoperability with existing software then you're covered and it's not infringement. Google did that: for compatibility with existing Java tooling, which is software. Sure, Java apps aren't, unmodified, compatible with Android, but the compatibility makes tooling and intermediate libraries compatible, which is a functional, interoperability concern.
    - simiones 6y ago
      Google tried to argue for fair use under the idea of interoperability, but the (few) intentional differences from Java that prevent most Java programs from running unmodified on Android pretty much bombed that case...
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        Note that Google won both the jury trials (first on not violating copyright, and then on the violation being fair use after the first was overturned on CAFC). In other words, Google won on most or all of its arguments at the jury trial level, and CAFC kept overturning all of its arguments. The sentiment I'm getting from the oral arguments is that SCOTUS is leaning much more towards "CAFC is off its rocker" here.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Wait, you have access to the oral arguments? Source?
        jcranmer 6y ago
        Oral arguments are happening via teleconference as a result of coronavirus, so they've been streamed live by C-SPAN. You can find the replay here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-america-oral-argument https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-ameri...
        dragonwriter 6y ago
  - salawat 6y ago
    Distinction without a difference. My code is an interoperability layer between making a computer do a particular computation and other developers or composers of software. Looking at an API and going "you could do this any other way than ours" is absolutely nothing more than a fundamental deconstruction of the entire field, at which point it's just Math. You're wasting everyone else's time. No one gets to copyright 2+2. I'm not shoving in 3 API layers to represent "Math.max()".
- yetihehe 6y ago
  No, it isn't providing api, merely using api (but providing it's own api). If using an api was copyrightable, our civilzation would collapse.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevin_b_er 6y ago
    And how will you use that API? If it is based on things like headers, you can no longer have a copy of that header to refer against. The compiler can no longer read that header into memory, as that's a copy. The use of an API will be copyrightable too. Now you understand the depths of the disaster this will be. This is a legal apocalypse for software.

Or it will create api compatibility layers (shims).

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

Wouldn't the compatibility layer be infringing copyright?

Spivak 6y ago
This is where I think a lot of people are talking past this case. If you use the API surface area for the purposes of interoperability with existing software then you're covered and it's not infringement. If you use the API surface area for your own software because you like the design, copying it is easier than coming up with something new, or you want to provide a familiar programming environment to developers then you're looking at infringing.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > If you use the API surface area for the purposes of interoperability with existing software But wasn't that one of Google's original goals for Android? Making porting existing Java apps easy?
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Google is making this case, we'll see if the judges buy it. Just because porting Java apps to Android is easier because Google copied the API doesn't suddenly absolve them when it's Google's intention that will decide this case.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > when it's Google's intention that will decide this case. Why do you presuppose to know the legal rule that the Supreme Court will articulate in its decision? I mean, you seem to presuppose that the Court will uphold the Federal Circuit on all contested questions of law and only reconsider whether the decision on the facts is reasonable, which is...mighty presumptuous. It's quite conceivable that Google could win on a more fundamental ground, since the question of whether the API is even protected by copyright or unprotected as a functional element (which also does not turn on Google’s intent) is a love issue in the appeal. They win on that, and the Court doesn't have to touch anything else. Even if they do need to address the fair use question because Google loses on copyright ability, the Court a lot will turn on the standard of review and the Seventh Amendment as to whether the Court is really probing Google's intent (de novo review) or merely probing whether any reasonable jury could have concluded that the use was fair, as the actual trial jury did here, preserving the right to jury trial. I would expect the latter, the Federal Circuit seems to have gone completely off the rails invoking de novo review to overturn the jury verdict.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        That seems to be what a lot of legal folks are speculating. That an 8-person court will find essentially technical legal reasons to overturn the appeal and essentially punt on making a major copyright ruling one way or the other.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        A ruling overturning the CAFC on the basis that fair use is a fact issue for the jury not subject to de novo review on appeal would still be a major (though not transformative, since outside of the CAFC in this case that seems to be how it has historically been treated) copyright decision.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If you use the API surface area for the purposes of interoperability with existing software then you're covered and it's not infringement. Google did that: for compatibility with existing Java tooling, which is software. Sure, Java apps aren't, unmodified, compatible with Android, but the compatibility makes tooling and intermediate libraries compatible, which is a functional, interoperability concern.
  - simiones 6y ago
    Google tried to argue for fair use under the idea of interoperability, but the (few) intentional differences from Java that prevent most Java programs from running unmodified on Android pretty much bombed that case...
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      Note that Google won both the jury trials (first on not violating copyright, and then on the violation being fair use after the first was overturned on CAFC). In other words, Google won on most or all of its arguments at the jury trial level, and CAFC kept overturning all of its arguments. The sentiment I'm getting from the oral arguments is that SCOTUS is leaning much more towards "CAFC is off its rocker" here.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Wait, you have access to the oral arguments? Source?
        jcranmer 6y ago
        Oral arguments are happening via teleconference as a result of coronavirus, so they've been streamed live by C-SPAN. You can find the replay here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-america-oral-argument https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-ameri...
        dragonwriter 6y ago
- salawat 6y ago
  Distinction without a difference. My code is an interoperability layer between making a computer do a particular computation and other developers or composers of software. Looking at an API and going "you could do this any other way than ours" is absolutely nothing more than a fundamental deconstruction of the entire field, at which point it's just Math. You're wasting everyone else's time. No one gets to copyright 2+2. I'm not shoving in 3 API layers to represent "Math.max()".
yetihehe 6y ago
No, it isn't providing api, merely using api (but providing it's own api). If using an api was copyrightable, our civilzation would collapse.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_b_er 6y ago
  And how will you use that API? If it is based on things like headers, you can no longer have a copy of that header to refer against. The compiler can no longer read that header into memory, as that's a copy. The use of an API will be copyrightable too. Now you understand the depths of the disaster this will be. This is a legal apocalypse for software.