3 ms·

This isn't just a disaster for Google. This is a disaster for competition in the tech industry and a disaster for consumers. If APIs can be copyrighted, what's

This isn't just a disaster for Google. This is a disaster for competition in the tech industry and a disaster for consumers. If APIs can be copyrighted, what's next? File formats? On-the-wire protocols?

bismuthsalt 6y ago
The unimpeachable approach for the software industry is to setup consortiums to define open standards for APIs, file formats and wire protocols, instead of relying on replicating the most popular proprietary ones. In fact there already exist such consortiums, for example https://www.w3.org https://www.w3.org, tasked with standardizing WWW, or https://www.cncf.io https://www.cncf.io for cloud computing standards.
yencabulator 6y ago
Why not screw heads and threads, too? Apple wouldn't have to just use hard-to-find screwdrivers, they could just make a new screw shape, copyright the design, and then it'll be even harder to open their gadgets.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  If that happens the bits will be on alibaba before the product is shipped to media.
- rdsnsca 6y ago
  Actually screw heads are copyrighted, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives#Robertson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives#Robertson
  - sterwill 6y ago
    Copyrights are not patents, and your link asserts that the Robertson screw design is patented, not copyrighted. The Google vs. Oracle case is about copyrights.
    - dmoy 6y ago
      A relevant point here that patents expire in ~decade or two, whereas copyright expires when Disney tells you it can expire (which is never). Not that expiring in a decade or two would help in the area of tech where stuff moves so fast.
      - smnrchrds 6y ago
        It helps. Didn't MP3 patents expire recently? MP3 is far from obsolete.
        chabad360 6y ago
        Your thing of the MP4 patents.
        monocasa 6y ago
        It was 2017 that the last MP3 patents expired, which is pretty recent, IMO. It was patented on the encode side about 10 years longer than on the decode side.
        smnrchrds 6y ago
        Yeah, I remember having to use nonfree repos to enable MP3 playback on my Linux machine back in the day. I could not remember when it stopped being the case, but 2017 seems about right.
    - CameronNemo 6y ago
      Right. Google's lawyer brought up the distinction at least a couple times, saying that the novelty of the API might be patentable but not copyrightable.
    - tzs 6y ago
      Procedural trivia time: the Google vs. Oracle case is about copyrights, but if it weren't for patents it would not be at the Supreme Court. Originally, Oracle sued for both patent infringement and copyright infringement. When they appealed, the appeal went to the Federal Circuit because of the patent issues, and so the Federal Circuit ended up handling the appeal of both the patent issues and the copyright issues. If the case been just a copyright case, the appeal would have went to the 9th Circuit. If it had taken that route, the 9th Circuit would have almost certainly upheld Judge Alsop, and the Supreme Court almost certainly would not have taken an appeal from that. The Federal Circuit is suppose to apply the precedent of the circuit that the case came from when deciding issues like the copyright issues that are only before the Federal Circuit because they tagged along on a patent case. In this case, that means they were suppose to follow the 9th Circuit precedent. I think we need to change the way the Federal Circuit works in cases like this. If they decide issues that got there via tag along, I think the appeals path for those issues should be to the circuit whose precedent they are suppose to be following. In this case, that would mean that the copyright issues should go to the 9th Circuit after the Federal Circuit. The current way can lead to a situation where in a given circuit you can effectively have different laws for X depending on whether or not someone sues you just over X, or over X and patents. If sued over just X, the law on X is what the circuit court of appeals for your circuit says. If sued over X and patents, the law on X is whatever the Federal Circuit thinks it is. Those can diverge, and then you have the situation that plaintiffs can choose what they want--sue just for X to get their circuit's law, or toss in a throwaway patent claim to get the Federal Circuit's law.
nojito 6y ago
Google has had 6 years to show this disaster and yet they could not list a single example of it happening. The world is going to be fine.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Google has had 6 years to show this disaster and yet they could not list a single example of it happening. How? For that to be true, there would have to be binding precedent applicable outside this case. But Federal Circuit decisions on legal questions—for instance copyright—outside their special subjects (patent claims is what got this case before them) do not create binding precedent for any lower court. Had this not gone through the Federal Circuit, and had it been the Ninth Circuit (which otherwise would have been the court to hear the appeal) that had ruled, sure, you could then say “Hey, look, there's not some apocalypse due to this ruling happening in the Ninth Circuit, so it must not be a real problem”. But the Federal Circuit decision, notionally applying Ninth Circuit law, has no binding effect on any other court in any other case, so of course it hasn't caused an apocalypse. Precisely because no other court, trial or appellate, has ever held APIs to be copyrightable.
  - nojito 6y ago
    The courts ruled 6 years ago. There was nothing stopping anyone from capitalizing on that ruling and moving forward with bring this "disaster" This was brought up during the oral arguments and Google did not have a great answer.

bismuthsalt 6y ago

The unimpeachable approach for the software industry is to setup consortiums to define open standards for APIs, file formats and wire protocols, instead of relying on replicating the most popular proprietary ones. In fact there already exist such consortiums, for example https://www.w3.org https://www.w3.org, tasked with standardizing WWW, or https://www.cncf.io https://www.cncf.io for cloud computing standards.

yencabulator 6y ago

Why not screw heads and threads, too? Apple wouldn't have to just use hard-to-find screwdrivers, they could just make a new screw shape, copyright the design, and then it'll be even harder to open their gadgets.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
If that happens the bits will be on alibaba before the product is shipped to media.
rdsnsca 6y ago
Actually screw heads are copyrighted, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives#Robertson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives#Robertson
- sterwill 6y ago
  Copyrights are not patents, and your link asserts that the Robertson screw design is patented, not copyrighted. The Google vs. Oracle case is about copyrights.
  - dmoy 6y ago
    A relevant point here that patents expire in ~decade or two, whereas copyright expires when Disney tells you it can expire (which is never). Not that expiring in a decade or two would help in the area of tech where stuff moves so fast.
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      It helps. Didn't MP3 patents expire recently? MP3 is far from obsolete.
      - chabad360 6y ago
        Your thing of the MP4 patents.
        monocasa 6y ago
        It was 2017 that the last MP3 patents expired, which is pretty recent, IMO. It was patented on the encode side about 10 years longer than on the decode side.
        smnrchrds 6y ago
        Yeah, I remember having to use nonfree repos to enable MP3 playback on my Linux machine back in the day. I could not remember when it stopped being the case, but 2017 seems about right.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    Right. Google's lawyer brought up the distinction at least a couple times, saying that the novelty of the API might be patentable but not copyrightable.
  - tzs 6y ago
    Procedural trivia time: the Google vs. Oracle case is about copyrights, but if it weren't for patents it would not be at the Supreme Court. Originally, Oracle sued for both patent infringement and copyright infringement. When they appealed, the appeal went to the Federal Circuit because of the patent issues, and so the Federal Circuit ended up handling the appeal of both the patent issues and the copyright issues. If the case been just a copyright case, the appeal would have went to the 9th Circuit. If it had taken that route, the 9th Circuit would have almost certainly upheld Judge Alsop, and the Supreme Court almost certainly would not have taken an appeal from that. The Federal Circuit is suppose to apply the precedent of the circuit that the case came from when deciding issues like the copyright issues that are only before the Federal Circuit because they tagged along on a patent case. In this case, that means they were suppose to follow the 9th Circuit precedent. I think we need to change the way the Federal Circuit works in cases like this. If they decide issues that got there via tag along, I think the appeals path for those issues should be to the circuit whose precedent they are suppose to be following. In this case, that would mean that the copyright issues should go to the 9th Circuit after the Federal Circuit. The current way can lead to a situation where in a given circuit you can effectively have different laws for X depending on whether or not someone sues you just over X, or over X and patents. If sued over just X, the law on X is what the circuit court of appeals for your circuit says. If sued over X and patents, the law on X is whatever the Federal Circuit thinks it is. Those can diverge, and then you have the situation that plaintiffs can choose what they want--sue just for X to get their circuit's law, or toss in a throwaway patent claim to get the Federal Circuit's law.

nojito 6y ago

Google has had 6 years to show this disaster and yet they could not list a single example of it happening. The world is going to be fine.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Google has had 6 years to show this disaster and yet they could not list a single example of it happening. How? For that to be true, there would have to be binding precedent applicable outside this case. But Federal Circuit decisions on legal questions—for instance copyright—outside their special subjects (patent claims is what got this case before them) do not create binding precedent for any lower court. Had this not gone through the Federal Circuit, and had it been the Ninth Circuit (which otherwise would have been the court to hear the appeal) that had ruled, sure, you could then say “Hey, look, there's not some apocalypse due to this ruling happening in the Ninth Circuit, so it must not be a real problem”. But the Federal Circuit decision, notionally applying Ninth Circuit law, has no binding effect on any other court in any other case, so of course it hasn't caused an apocalypse. Precisely because no other court, trial or appellate, has ever held APIs to be copyrightable.
- nojito 6y ago
  The courts ruled 6 years ago. There was nothing stopping anyone from capitalizing on that ruling and moving forward with bring this "disaster" This was brought up during the oral arguments and Google did not have a great answer.