20 ms·

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to be surprised by this, I got the exact same impression from the hearing. The problem for Google on the copyrightabi

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to be surprised by this, I got the exact same impression from the hearing. The problem for Google on the copyrightability front is that "compilations" of non-copyrightable items can be copyrightable even if the underlying items themselves are not, if the "selection, coordination, or arrangement" of those items involves sufficient creativity to be considered an "original work of authorship". For example, individual recipes are generally not copyrightable, but if you compile a set of recipes and publish them in a cookbook, the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. That act of organization likely implies that the Java API (taken as a whole) constitutes a copyrightable work, even if the individual method signatures are not. What's worse for Google is that code has always been considered copyrightable so arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code. As is common when HN discusses legal matters I see a lot of people blaming the judges for not understanding tech, but the problem here isn't really the judges so much as the law itself. We should not be surprised if Oracle ends up winning here, at least on the question of copyrightability. Google may have an out related to fair use, but that seems like a long shot as well.

cafed00d 6y ago
> As is common when HN discusses legal matters I see a lot of people blaming the judges for not understanding tech, but the problem here isn't really the judges so much as the law itself. Yep I second this. I think there’s a parallel “legal news” community somewhere pointing at us here going “those nerds don’t understand how law works” :) What we should _all_ be doing more actively, imo, is nudging our representatives to update the law to create legislation that answers definitively “whether APIs are copyrightable or not”. Albeit, that is a much more difficult and slower process. Well, you know what they say about democracy as a form of government though: “something something yeah, it kinda sucks but it’s the best we’ve got something”
granzymes 6y ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if Oracle wins on copyright (I think it is almost impossible for Google to count to 5 on their merger doctrine argument) but I disagree that fair use is a long shot. The justices that brought up the case’s procedural history were all unanimously skeptical that the Federal Circuit correctly set aside the fair use verdict in favor of Google. I think the most likely outcome of this case (especially with the absence of Justice Ginsburg) is a remand to the Federal Circuit with instructions to pay more attention to the trial court’s findings.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I think the most likely outcome of this case (especially with the absence of Justice Ginsburg) is a remand to the Federal Circuit with instructions to pay more attention to the trial court’s findings. I think that's somewhat unlikely; I think its somewhat more likely that the court concludes that the Federal Circuit erred in using de novo review, but instead of remanding to the Federal Circuit for reasonableness review reconsiders the jury verdict on the bases of the trial record itself (especially if by doing so it can uphold the trial verdict and kick the copyrightability issue down the road to another case.) While the Supreme Court will dodge hard issues where it can, it doesn't tend to do it in a way which leaves a good chance that the same issue will come to them again in the same case. When they dodge, they like to make sure the issue stays dodged, at least for the immediate case. There's way too much risk that the Federal Circuit would reach the same answer if told to use a reasonableness standard of review (I don't think it should, but absent reaching the answer itself, the Supreme Court can't be sure of that), which would leave the copyrightability issue to come before the Court again before this case would be finalized.
  - granzymes 6y ago
    I gave more weight to a remand than SCOTUS upholding the trial verdict itself primarily because the court is currently shorthanded. I agree that the court prefers to punt for good !
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
jayd16 6y ago
I think the question is whether the utilitarian need to copy that arrangement for compatibility reasons is enough to argue fair use.
hugi 6y ago
If I'd publish a cookbook with the same chapters and recipe names as a different cookbook, but every recipe my own creation from scratch; I wouldn't consider that copyright infringement.
- SiVal 6y ago
  Maybe, but imagine the original cookbook as a website with hundreds of pages of recipe titles and descriptions, each with a link to the body of the recipe. Someone clones those hundreds of pages, replacing only the domain name in the links. Now is it copyright infringement? Can designing an API be a different job from implementing a design? If so, then maybe the work product of the designer is copyrightable on its own.
  - hugi 6y ago
    No, I'm not imagining it as a website. An API is literally just a table of contents. meat.beef .. BeefAndPotatos .. BeefAndCabbage fish.cod .. CodWithPeas .. CodWithChips This is literally an exact representation of what an API looks like. You go to a recipe and you execute it expecting a result. And you get one, the implementation of it is up to the author of the book.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > An API is literally just a table of contents. An API is more like a set of mechanical gears that just happen to be shaped a little like words. If I change the names of things in a table of contents to synonyms, I can still use it to find what I am looking for. If I change the names of things my implementation of an API, it no longer functions as an interface for the things that worked with it previously. An API, despite looking like works, is not a literary expression of a process, it is a machine for executing the process itself, and its shape, is essential to its function.
      - rocqua 6y ago
        I do really like the TOC argument. If I were to take the TOC from another book. Copy only the TOC, write all the chapters and sub-chapters without having even read the other book (only the TOC). Suppose then, than I publish the book explicitly as a replacement for the other book. Not as in "this is the same" but as in "if you find a reference to a chapter in the other book, you can also just look here". Would that be copyright infringement? What happens if I do this to a technical document (think a 3gppp spec) where the TOC runs for 10 pages for a 300 page document, with headings nested 5 deep?
TheMblabla 6y ago
I think the CEO of Sun knew this.. "Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun." "'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software. 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people...we wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as possible.'" https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-android-didnt-need-license-for-java-apis/ https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-androi...
- rayiner 6y ago
  Whether it’s copyrightable or not is a legal question, and Schwartz isn’t a lawyer. And the answer has to be the same for everyone, not just Sun. Now, that might be an “implied license” or “estoppel” argument—even if it’s copyrightable, you can’t enforce it now because you led everyone to believe they could use it for free.
  - indymike 6y ago
    What lawyers think matters little. What judges think, well, that is what matters.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Yes, of course. My point is that Schwarz isn’t an expert in copyright law, nor can his individual opinion be dispositive on a question of law that affects everyone.
    - FandangoRanger 6y ago
      Judges are merely lawyers who have pupated.
      - bitwize 6y ago
        What's this? ATTORNEE is evolving! ATTORNEE evolved into JUDGEON!
- 6y ago
8ytecoder 6y ago
In your analogy, I view APIs as the equivalent of the ToC of the cookbook rather than the cookbook itself. Unless it still holds that Table of Contents are copyrightable as well (I honestly don't know), the argument won't hold.
starfallg 6y ago
>For example, recipes are not individually copyrightable, but if you compile a set of recipes and publish them in a cookbook, the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. Recipes that contains more than just the basic list of ingredients and instructions can be copyrightable. Include a picture, illustration or a bit of creative text and copyright will apply on that. That's the true reason why cookbooks fall under copyright (while the actual list of ingredients and instructions do not, which people do lift out of cookbooks for example). Even when applying copyright to an "arrangement" of items that are not copyrightable, as in a database, there needs to be creativity expressed, otherwise it will not qualify for copyright.
- nodamage 6y ago
  While that might be true, it's not really relevant to the underlying point, which is the selection and arrangement of non-copyrightable material can result in a copyrightable work. You can replace recipes with any other example if you'd like. > Even when applying copyright to an "arrangement" of items that are not copyrightable, as in a database, there needs to be creativity expressed, otherwise it will not qualify for copyright. As the Supreme Court said in Feist: "To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice." This is not a very difficult threshold to meet (and Google has already conceded it has been met.)
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. That act of organization likely implies that the Java API (taken as a whole) constitutes a copyrightable work, even if the individual method signatures are not. The problem with this theory is that class and package declarations are still just recipes. There is a recipe for making chocolate chips. Then there is a recipe for making chocolate chip cookies where one of the ingredients is chocolate chips. It's recursive but it's not fundamentally different. Saying you can copyright a recipe for chocolate chip cookies because it's just organizing the recipes for chocolate chips and butter and brown sugar is pretty ridiculous.
- mantap 6y ago
  Isn't that exactly what the article is saying about the justices worrying it could "undermine copyright of computer programs"? What is the difference between an API (interface) and implementation? The algorithm. And algorithms are not copyrightable. A lot can be interpreted into the law when it is beneficial for everybody to do so. But interpretation has its limits. Some laws must be made explicit by the legislature.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > What is the difference between an API (interface) and implementation? The algorithm. Not the algorithm. The algorithm is essentially the recipe. The algorithm is merge sort, or depth first search. It's the contract the API gives you, more or less. "This function does merge sort." But there are unlimited possible implementations of merge sort and each one is copyrightable. And one implementation doesn't infringe the copyright of the other ones, even when they're the same algorithm, but you have to write your own. Copyright doesn't protect function, it protects works of authorship.
    - FartyMcFarter 6y ago
      > "This function does merge sort." This is not the most common type of contract in APIs. More like "this function sorts", or perhaps "this function sorts in O(N*log N) time". Sorting can be done with many different algorithms.
eastbayjake 6y ago
> As is common when HN discusses legal matters I see a lot of people blaming the judges for not understanding tech, but the problem here isn't really the judges so much as the law itself. Or to state it more plainly: the problem is legislators not understanding tech, and not updating our laws to account for the way computers and the internet have transformed society over the last 40 years. This was a similar gripe in the Net Neutrality arguments on HN. It's truly insane that regulatory bodies are using public utility laws from 1934 - before even the mass adoption of television - to create the rules that govern the internet.
- coliveira 6y ago
  However, when legislators try to do their job there is ample outcry that big government is infringing on the rights of people and companies to do free commerce. What gives?
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >This was a similar gripe in the Net Neutrality arguments on HN. It's truly insane that regulatory bodies are using public utility laws from 1934 - before even the mass adoption of television - to create the rules that govern the internet. I have no issue with updating (or even replacing) the Communications Act of 1934, since much has changed in the last 24 years (the last time the act was updated). But claiming that the Communications Act of 1934[0] originally enacted in 1934, is a public utility law that's over 80 years old isn't accurate. In fact, has been repeatedly modified and updated, the last time in 1996. You could certainly argue that 1996 was a long time ago too (almost 25 years), but arguing that the law applied was, in its entirety, 80+ years old is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss... Edit: Fixed typos.
abvdasker 6y ago
I understand that applying utilitarian principles to a strictly deontological framework like the law is pointless, but the API issue is a situation where, regardless of the precedent or ideas about authorship, the adverse impact of a ruling in favor of Oracle on the broader tech sector seems like it should be the cardinal consideration.
- nojito 6y ago
  This entire topic was discussed during the oral arguments. Google can not prove these adverse effects that they continue to claim will happen. They have had 6 years to do so and yet they can not state a single instance.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Because all of the copyright Trolls are waiting for the court to rule API's are copyrightable. Although it would be HILARIOUS if Amazon Sues Oracle on day one after the ruling for their copying of the S3 API. That said there are ALL KINDS of interop code that is at risk with the ruling, only people with their heads in the sand and do not understand the industry at all believe that nothing negative will come about if this ruling stands
    - tylerchr 6y ago
      > That said there are ALL KINDS of interop code that is at risk with the ruling Yes, there are parties that stand to lose a lot in the short term from a decision for Oracle. But would it be so bad in the long term if proprietary vendor-specific protocols were put at a disadvantage? Maybe back-to-basics open protocols (or at least protocols formally contributed to the public domain) would resurge, and interoperability would actually _increase._
      - syshum 6y ago
        Yes because the entire history of software industry shows what the problems are with Vendor Lock-in and how it will be abused Oracle is a case book study if it, that is their entire business model
nojito 6y ago
>What's worse for Google is that code has always been considered copyrightable so arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code. Congress would have made that exemption when they made the law in the first place. >A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. This is an important fact people keep forgetting. Asking the Court to bluntly create legislation is never ever going to happen.
ChuckMcM 6y ago
I am surprised that Google's legal team would forward such lame arguments. There are much better lawyers out there with a much stronger ability to convey complex topics to non-technical people in a way that illustrates the point under consideration.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Such as?
  - ChuckMcM 6y ago
    Well I found Justice Breyer's argument, in the article, which compared APIs to the QWERTY layout of keyboards much better than Googles. Imagine if you copyrighted the six sided bolt head? Or the TORX screw. Making screw drivers or wrenches that loosened or tightened them would be copyrightable. How about copyrighting which side of the street people drive on, or the width of driving lanes. Do we get to charge a "usage fee" for cars that adhere to the lanes available on freeways?
Aerroon 6y ago
>As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. An API doesn't require an implementation and copyright is handed out automatically. Could I then write and run a generator that just starts spitting out endless variations of possible APIs (combinations of dictionary words?). Does that mean I would end up holding the copyright for most of the 'common sense' APIs people would want to use for software projects?
- dannyw 6y ago
  No, that doesn't feature sufficient creativity.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    That's patent law. Copyright law is automatic and will always be granted which is why it's absolutely stupid to add patent law features to copyright.
tomatocracy 6y ago
Naive question: how and why is this different from the various precedents which allowed "clean room" reimplementation of an interface/API?
- yk 6y ago
  That is precisely the question, is a clean room reimplementation copyright infringement? And of course, this is Google doing a clean room implementation of the famously litigious Oracle's code, so we get basically laboratory conditions.
andrewjl 6y ago
Having read multiple perspectives, some pro-Google and some pro-Oracle, I cannot reconcile this sort of argument with the Baker v. Selden precedent. [1] Perhaps my understanding of APIs is different because I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, but how is this not an open and shut case? The cookbook analogy is not applicable for the same reason one could not apply it in Baker, accounting methods are not of themselves copyrightable creative works. (They may be patentable, but I believe patentability is NOT at issue here.) Selecting and arranging recipes requires creativity. I do not believe API code of a math library is in any way the same level, having designed hundreds of APIs and several SDKs myself. Perhaps creating a specification upon which the API design based upon is, but that leads right back to Baker. What am I missing here? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden Edit: And if you think about it, an API code is really just a set of templated forms for conveyance of data between systems. In this sense it is really no different from the accounting ledger templates in Baker. Second edit: It would be worthwhile to enlighten the judges on the early history of computer programs and their ties to recipes which should make the cookbook analogy and its potential misapplication here even more obvious. Third edit: Another line of enquiry would be to discuss differences between API contracts and APIs. They are not the same, though often confused, even by practicing software engineers.
- interpol_p 6y ago
  I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic I design an API for graphical coding and spend significant creative energy choosing the right words, calling conventions, result types to not only make something intuitive, but emotionally pleasurable to code with Sometimes I'll spend days writing out possible forms of the API — changing words, tense, syntax, until it looks and feels "right." These aren't arbitrary or purely functional decisions Do I want my users to "read" text from a file, or "open" the file? Do I want them to handle keyboard events in a simple global function or assign callbacks into a keyboard handler under each character name. How are those callbacks shaped? What's easy to understand? APIs aren't just restricted simple functions and types. Some may involve the creation of a custom DSL to make it easy to declare functionality in part of your system, or clusters of protocols that work together in very specific ways so users can implement a complex system atop them
happythomist 6y ago
One solution might be for the Supreme Court to acknowledge that APIs are copyrightable, but that re-implementations are always fair use.
mrh0057 6y ago
Saying an API is copyright means no Linux, no alternative compilers or runtimes, etc. Clearance Thomas saying it’s copyrightable because it’s like having another football team playbook is incorrect. It’s equivalent having the copyright on diagraming a play. An api doesn’t include implementation.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Yep. "It would set such terrible precedent for the industry that nobody even thought to ask the question before" doesn't imply it's not what the law says.
dustingetz 6y ago
so iterate this 50 more years (rules inevitably are both applied and no longer applicable) and law/society collapses
billfruit 6y ago
Are anthologies of poems copy writable? I thought not.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Are anthologies of poems copy writable? I thought not. Then you thought wrong[0]. While the poems themselves may be copyrighted by others, the editor (presumably getting license/permission from copyright holders of said poems) organizes the poems in the anthology. The resulting work is copyrightable in its own right. Check out the link below and the copyrights on each anthology. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/03/top-10-poetry-anthologies https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/03/top-10-poetry-...
- andrewjl 6y ago
  Different from this case, anthologies imply curation which is a legitimately creative act.
- please-reread 6y ago
  "copy writable" ? what does writability has to do with anything?
sergeykish 6y ago
Is file format copyrightable? That's a cookbook how to extract data. Is binary API copyrightable? That's a cookbook too. Is API as build target copyrightable? I just want this code to run. Is processor ISA copyrightable? I have to put gas in tank, oil in engine, water in cooling system for car to run. I have to press clutch, turn a key for engine to start. Is this copyrightable? Every thing is creative. There are many ways to make same thing. Sometimes we care not about creativity but compatibility. Qemu runs x86, ARM. Open Office opens Microsoft Word files. Google Cloud Storage is interoperable with Amazon S3 [1]. I can construct my own client. And yet we have PNG, OGG, AV1, RISC-V — there are some issues with MP3 (patent), GIF (patent), H.264 (patent), x86 (patent), ARM. [1] https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/interoperability https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/interoperability
- tylerchr 6y ago
  > Is {X} copyrightable? Evidently yes, to the extent that {X} includes subjective properties that go beyond the fundamental function of {X}. To use file formats as an example, the fundamental function of an archive file format is to bundle a set of otherwise-independent files together. A basic archive file format that simply concatenates file contents together (and I guess the necessary header to identify the boundaries between them) wouldn’t be copyrightable. But a more advanced format that includes an index of included files might be, since the addition of the index is a product of some artistry by someone who thought it would be a helpful convenience for users. [1] Extended to the car example, “putting gas in tank” wouldn’t be copyrightable because no tank can function without gas. But improvements to the method of transferring that gas might be. Engaging a clutch is fundamental to the operation of a transmission and not copyrightable, but a clutch that is specially-designed to require less force might be. The key is an interesting case though... I suppose I’d have to say that mechanism would have been copyrightable, since one could start an engine in ways other than a key (maybe a crank or a push button), or perhaps because the idea to couple the unlocking mechanism to the engine start signal was a clever idea rather than a fundamental necessity. [1]: To my understanding, this is exactly the situation with “tar” and “zip,” though fortunately for us the “zip” format was contributed to the public domain rather than copyrighted.
monadic2 6y ago
There's nothing precluding the legal analysis you've outlined from stemming from a poor understanding of the underlying technology. Just because the legal reasoning is internally sound doesn't mean the resulting narrative makes any sense when applied to reality, and it hardly is the only possible internally sound judgement. There is plenty of room for arbitrary semantics (and I would argue actively harmful and ignorant semantics) to dominate the resulting judgement.
hannasanarion 6y ago
The cookbook analogy falls apart as soon as you question whether creativity is implied. Sure, there is some creativity in putting "cookies" and "bundt cake" together in the Dessert chapter. Is there really any creativity in putting "log" and "pi" in the Math package? APIs aren't cookbooks, they are toolboxes, and Oracle is claiming to own the idea of putting your Flathead next to your Phillips
c3534l 6y ago
I think the fact that you can copyright which recipes are in a cookbook is on the level of an API, which is why I think its absurd the government grants exclusive ownership for such a thing. I don't know how we got to this point where we think any of this is a natural or sane state of affairs.
shmerl 6y ago
API itself is already a specific compilation (of function signatures). But it's still meta information, not actual information on the implementation of the functionality. Making API copyrightable is absurd and harmful, same as it's absurd to copyright abstract concepts. European judges got that right.
- andrewjl 6y ago
  Exactly this, the meta information point is spot on. IIRC there is durable precedent that mechanical collections of information w/ no creative "touch" are ineligible for copyright. I wonder if that can be extended to the meta information definition you came up with.
mongol 6y ago
Yes and we should not forget that min and max are not just methods with names, they have a contract too and should behave in a certain way. For these examples thus might not seem like a big deal, but the contract must apply for all methods, even non-trivial ones.
diffeomorphism 6y ago
> the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. But what is discussed here is not the cookbook but just the table of contents. The actual recipes are different. Making another cookbook with chapter 1: salads, chapter 2: soups etc. is common practice. The question is how much detail you are allowed to copy in order to allow for interoperability. For instance, a dinner might call for the Oracle potato salad of Section 1.3 and Oracle tomato soup of Section 2.2. If your cookbook has your recipes (not Oracle's) in the same Sections in your book, that is useful for your readers/chefs, since they can easily switch their menus to your book. Are you allowed to do that? That is the question. > arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code. Disagree. APIs are talking about code but not code by themselves alone. Just like "The potato salad recipe is in Section 1.3" talks about a recipe but is decidedly not a recipe by itself. If the law currently thinks that should be copyrightable, then the law should be changed.
- thomasahle 6y ago
  >> the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. > But what is discussed here is not the cookbook but just the table of contents. You probably can't copy that either. That's like Oracle's example of making a new Harry Potter book with all the same chapter titles. I don't know if there are any good examples of APIs one can make based on books..
  - diffeomorphism 6y ago
    I mean you very much can copy Chapter 1: Introducing the main character .. Chapter 6: Introducing side character Chapter 7: Arrival at the main story place .. Chapter 17: The final chapter In fact there are whole classifications of literature that identify basic storylines, tropes, structure etc. . The reason you couldn't copy the harry potter chapter titles exactly is because they contain specific titles, e.g. "the boy who lived", but "<my own catchphrase for main character>" as the first chapter title is again very, very common. Also, the argument is about reuse/interoperability. Recipes are something you use and the naming is functional and it is important that it is similar enough. I am not aware of harry potter chapters being used like that, but if authors start talking about "The sorting hat" chapter as a term of the art , then yes you should be able to use that term. Similarly to how you can introduce a weapon in your novel without paying royalties to Chekhov.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
>What's worse for Google is that code has always been considered copyrightable so arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code. That's another aspect. API isn't code, only implementation produces executable code, API only helps ensure that those chunks of code fit together, like book's spine holds pages together and in order.
- manojlds 6y ago
  If APIs are like book spine I don't know why teams are spending so much time designing and thinking about their APIs. Just slap on a "book spine" and get to writing code you procrastinating devs.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> What's worse for Google is that code has always been considered copyrightable so arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code. Not exactly; an API can be completely re-implemented from scratch and still be compatible. If it was just about the API code, there wouldn't even be a case. The idea that an API could legally be an "original work of authorship" makes a lot of sense; but the technical implications could indeed harm the industry overall. Essentially what this means is: I build a system, you're not allowed to build a compatible system. Yet another reason why open source is the only way forward.
- imtringued 6y ago
  >The idea that an API could legally be an "original work of authorship" makes a lot of sense; but the technical implications could indeed harm the industry overall. It doesn't make sense because an API doesn't exist in the work. Copyrighting APIs is functionally useless because you can have multiple works with the same API without violating copyright through clean room designs. Therefore whatever protection you want should cover more than one work. Copyright only covers the works you create yourself. It doesn't cover works that other people create even when they are directly inspired by your works. We have patent law for this.
m12k 6y ago
> As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. That act of organization likely implies that the Java API (taken as a whole) constitutes a copyrightable work, even if the individual method signatures are not. As an IP-minimalist, I'm surprised anyone can look at the mental gymnastics that people go through in order to draw some arbitrary line between acceptable and unacceptable copying, and come to any other conclusion than "this whole system is ludicrous".
sergeykish 6y ago
> Corona Data Systems, Eagle Computer, and Handwell Corporation, were successfully sued by IBM for copyright infringement in 1984, and were forced to re-implement their BIOS in a way which did not infringe IBM's copyrights [1]. > To develop a legal BIOS, Phoenix used a clean room design [2]. I think there was some creative process in designing BIOS. There is no difference between binary and text format, it is just a serialization. WASM text format and binary format. Java source and bytecode. API documentation is certainly copyrightable, even text definition file. A lot of creative process goes to putting braces, spaces, commas, naming static double min(double a, double b) versus static double min (double x, double y) both would be valid reimplementation of java interface. Yes, problem is copyright law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies
- imtringued 6y ago
  >API documentation is certainly copyrightable, even text definition file. A lot of creative process goes to putting braces, spaces, commas, naming Yes but it is useless. You can e.g. copyright an electronics schematic. People aren't allowed to copy it and sell it but they can build the device that is being described by the schematic and then they can create their own schematic based on the device they have created. That's why we have patents.
cookiengineer 6y ago
Someone could also argue your analogy with a cookbook is wrong, because if we talk about headers and APIs, it's more like Oracle claiming that their stove's interface to the pot is copyrightable. How is heat transferred to the pot? From the stove to the pot, this is the API, and how it's implemented doesn't matter. Oracle claims that this specific thing, that you turn on any button and make it heat up is copyrightable. But we all know that a stove is useless without that API. We would have to buy a whole new kitchen equipment for all stoves that we are going to buy. A further question is: When will it end with copyright claims? I mean, at somepoint somebody will claim that the effing powerplug is also copyrightable. But we all know that nobody (speaking of % of the population) even has the skills to connect a device without a power plug without potentially harming themselves. All technology is useless without APIs. Nonetheless I think that copyright laws is essentially full of flaws here, because if we focus on speech alone (of which most copyright laws are based on), someone might even argue that specific words are copyrightable if they are "uncommon enough".
- thu2111 6y ago
  Tortured analogies like this is why the whole software industry is going to be making a surprised pikachu face when Oracle wins (see my comment a day or two ago on the prior story for substantially similar sentiment). Heat transfer to a pot is not an API, not even remotely close. It's a physical fact that has been observed since the stone age. The Java API is huge. It's not a mere physical fact, nor even a collection of method prototypes. It's everything covered in the JavaDocs: what happens in error scenarios, thread safety rules, how objects are combined to get different effects, what you can subclass and what's not, what security permissions things need. It's enormous and every decision in that was a 'creative' decision, in some sense. From a plain reading of copyright law it's obvious APIs far smaller and simpler than Java should fall under copyright. The idea APIs don't is a convenient consensus-quo for the software industry that benefits competition and should probably be preserved, although there is the counterbalancing factor that the non-protectability of APIs probably has invisible side effects we can't see (e.g. under-investment in API design). But the Supreme Court won't or shouldn't care about any of that because it's a political debate. The question before them is about what the current law says, and on that, Oracle probably have a point. Also, it's going to be even more fashionable to hate on Oracle if they do win, but the current situation has always been legally fragile. Sooner or later someone would have observed the apparent skew between the software industry's approach to copyright and what the law really says. We may be at least somewhat grateful that it's a fight between two well resourced firms and not e.g. a patent troll firm type of situation, where the defenders are threatened and have to pay up because they're too small to fight it.
sriku 6y ago
Interesting point. If I implement, say, the List interface for a class in my program, have I violated the API copyright?
gameswithgo 6y ago
When you can wrangle the analogies in reasonable ways in either direction, why not wrangle them in ways that make the tech industry sane, rather than insane?
kovacs_x 6y ago
Maybe instead of comparing to cookbooks we should compare an API's to technical standards? (think ISO)

cafed00d 6y ago

> As is common when HN discusses legal matters I see a lot of people blaming the judges for not understanding tech, but the problem here isn't really the judges so much as the law itself. Yep I second this. I think there’s a parallel “legal news” community somewhere pointing at us here going “those nerds don’t understand how law works” :) What we should _all_ be doing more actively, imo, is nudging our representatives to update the law to create legislation that answers definitively “whether APIs are copyrightable or not”. Albeit, that is a much more difficult and slower process. Well, you know what they say about democracy as a form of government though: “something something yeah, it kinda sucks but it’s the best we’ve got something”

granzymes 6y ago

I wouldn’t be surprised if Oracle wins on copyright (I think it is almost impossible for Google to count to 5 on their merger doctrine argument) but I disagree that fair use is a long shot. The justices that brought up the case’s procedural history were all unanimously skeptical that the Federal Circuit correctly set aside the fair use verdict in favor of Google. I think the most likely outcome of this case (especially with the absence of Justice Ginsburg) is a remand to the Federal Circuit with instructions to pay more attention to the trial court’s findings.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I think the most likely outcome of this case (especially with the absence of Justice Ginsburg) is a remand to the Federal Circuit with instructions to pay more attention to the trial court’s findings. I think that's somewhat unlikely; I think its somewhat more likely that the court concludes that the Federal Circuit erred in using de novo review, but instead of remanding to the Federal Circuit for reasonableness review reconsiders the jury verdict on the bases of the trial record itself (especially if by doing so it can uphold the trial verdict and kick the copyrightability issue down the road to another case.) While the Supreme Court will dodge hard issues where it can, it doesn't tend to do it in a way which leaves a good chance that the same issue will come to them again in the same case. When they dodge, they like to make sure the issue stays dodged, at least for the immediate case. There's way too much risk that the Federal Circuit would reach the same answer if told to use a reasonableness standard of review (I don't think it should, but absent reaching the answer itself, the Supreme Court can't be sure of that), which would leave the copyrightability issue to come before the Court again before this case would be finalized.
- granzymes 6y ago
  I gave more weight to a remand than SCOTUS upholding the trial verdict itself primarily because the court is currently shorthanded. I agree that the court prefers to punt for good !
  - dragonwriter 6y ago

jayd16 6y ago

I think the question is whether the utilitarian need to copy that arrangement for compatibility reasons is enough to argue fair use.

hugi 6y ago

If I'd publish a cookbook with the same chapters and recipe names as a different cookbook, but every recipe my own creation from scratch; I wouldn't consider that copyright infringement.

SiVal 6y ago
Maybe, but imagine the original cookbook as a website with hundreds of pages of recipe titles and descriptions, each with a link to the body of the recipe. Someone clones those hundreds of pages, replacing only the domain name in the links. Now is it copyright infringement? Can designing an API be a different job from implementing a design? If so, then maybe the work product of the designer is copyrightable on its own.
- hugi 6y ago
  No, I'm not imagining it as a website. An API is literally just a table of contents. meat.beef .. BeefAndPotatos .. BeefAndCabbage fish.cod .. CodWithPeas .. CodWithChips This is literally an exact representation of what an API looks like. You go to a recipe and you execute it expecting a result. And you get one, the implementation of it is up to the author of the book.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > An API is literally just a table of contents. An API is more like a set of mechanical gears that just happen to be shaped a little like words. If I change the names of things in a table of contents to synonyms, I can still use it to find what I am looking for. If I change the names of things my implementation of an API, it no longer functions as an interface for the things that worked with it previously. An API, despite looking like works, is not a literary expression of a process, it is a machine for executing the process itself, and its shape, is essential to its function.
    - rocqua 6y ago
      I do really like the TOC argument. If I were to take the TOC from another book. Copy only the TOC, write all the chapters and sub-chapters without having even read the other book (only the TOC). Suppose then, than I publish the book explicitly as a replacement for the other book. Not as in "this is the same" but as in "if you find a reference to a chapter in the other book, you can also just look here". Would that be copyright infringement? What happens if I do this to a technical document (think a 3gppp spec) where the TOC runs for 10 pages for a 300 page document, with headings nested 5 deep?

TheMblabla 6y ago

I think the CEO of Sun knew this.. "Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun." "'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software. 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people...we wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as possible.'" https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-android-didnt-need-license-for-java-apis/ https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-androi...

rayiner 6y ago
Whether it’s copyrightable or not is a legal question, and Schwartz isn’t a lawyer. And the answer has to be the same for everyone, not just Sun. Now, that might be an “implied license” or “estoppel” argument—even if it’s copyrightable, you can’t enforce it now because you led everyone to believe they could use it for free.
- indymike 6y ago
  What lawyers think matters little. What judges think, well, that is what matters.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Yes, of course. My point is that Schwarz isn’t an expert in copyright law, nor can his individual opinion be dispositive on a question of law that affects everyone.
  - FandangoRanger 6y ago
    Judges are merely lawyers who have pupated.
    - bitwize 6y ago
      What's this? ATTORNEE is evolving! ATTORNEE evolved into JUDGEON!
6y ago

8ytecoder 6y ago

In your analogy, I view APIs as the equivalent of the ToC of the cookbook rather than the cookbook itself. Unless it still holds that Table of Contents are copyrightable as well (I honestly don't know), the argument won't hold.

starfallg 6y ago

>For example, recipes are not individually copyrightable, but if you compile a set of recipes and publish them in a cookbook, the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. Recipes that contains more than just the basic list of ingredients and instructions can be copyrightable. Include a picture, illustration or a bit of creative text and copyright will apply on that. That's the true reason why cookbooks fall under copyright (while the actual list of ingredients and instructions do not, which people do lift out of cookbooks for example). Even when applying copyright to an "arrangement" of items that are not copyrightable, as in a database, there needs to be creativity expressed, otherwise it will not qualify for copyright.

nodamage 6y ago
While that might be true, it's not really relevant to the underlying point, which is the selection and arrangement of non-copyrightable material can result in a copyrightable work. You can replace recipes with any other example if you'd like. > Even when applying copyright to an "arrangement" of items that are not copyrightable, as in a database, there needs to be creativity expressed, otherwise it will not qualify for copyright. As the Supreme Court said in Feist: "To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice." This is not a very difficult threshold to meet (and Google has already conceded it has been met.)

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. That act of organization likely implies that the Java API (taken as a whole) constitutes a copyrightable work, even if the individual method signatures are not. The problem with this theory is that class and package declarations are still just recipes. There is a recipe for making chocolate chips. Then there is a recipe for making chocolate chip cookies where one of the ingredients is chocolate chips. It's recursive but it's not fundamentally different. Saying you can copyright a recipe for chocolate chip cookies because it's just organizing the recipes for chocolate chips and butter and brown sugar is pretty ridiculous.

mantap 6y ago
Isn't that exactly what the article is saying about the justices worrying it could "undermine copyright of computer programs"? What is the difference between an API (interface) and implementation? The algorithm. And algorithms are not copyrightable. A lot can be interpreted into the law when it is beneficial for everybody to do so. But interpretation has its limits. Some laws must be made explicit by the legislature.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > What is the difference between an API (interface) and implementation? The algorithm. Not the algorithm. The algorithm is essentially the recipe. The algorithm is merge sort, or depth first search. It's the contract the API gives you, more or less. "This function does merge sort." But there are unlimited possible implementations of merge sort and each one is copyrightable. And one implementation doesn't infringe the copyright of the other ones, even when they're the same algorithm, but you have to write your own. Copyright doesn't protect function, it protects works of authorship.
  - FartyMcFarter 6y ago
    > "This function does merge sort." This is not the most common type of contract in APIs. More like "this function sorts", or perhaps "this function sorts in O(N*log N) time". Sorting can be done with many different algorithms.

eastbayjake 6y ago

> As is common when HN discusses legal matters I see a lot of people blaming the judges for not understanding tech, but the problem here isn't really the judges so much as the law itself. Or to state it more plainly: the problem is legislators not understanding tech, and not updating our laws to account for the way computers and the internet have transformed society over the last 40 years. This was a similar gripe in the Net Neutrality arguments on HN. It's truly insane that regulatory bodies are using public utility laws from 1934 - before even the mass adoption of television - to create the rules that govern the internet.

coliveira 6y ago
However, when legislators try to do their job there is ample outcry that big government is infringing on the rights of people and companies to do free commerce. What gives?
nobody9999 6y ago
>This was a similar gripe in the Net Neutrality arguments on HN. It's truly insane that regulatory bodies are using public utility laws from 1934 - before even the mass adoption of television - to create the rules that govern the internet. I have no issue with updating (or even replacing) the Communications Act of 1934, since much has changed in the last 24 years (the last time the act was updated). But claiming that the Communications Act of 1934[0] originally enacted in 1934, is a public utility law that's over 80 years old isn't accurate. In fact, has been repeatedly modified and updated, the last time in 1996. You could certainly argue that 1996 was a long time ago too (almost 25 years), but arguing that the law applied was, in its entirety, 80+ years old is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss... Edit: Fixed typos.

abvdasker 6y ago

I understand that applying utilitarian principles to a strictly deontological framework like the law is pointless, but the API issue is a situation where, regardless of the precedent or ideas about authorship, the adverse impact of a ruling in favor of Oracle on the broader tech sector seems like it should be the cardinal consideration.

nojito 6y ago
This entire topic was discussed during the oral arguments. Google can not prove these adverse effects that they continue to claim will happen. They have had 6 years to do so and yet they can not state a single instance.
- syshum 6y ago
  Because all of the copyright Trolls are waiting for the court to rule API's are copyrightable. Although it would be HILARIOUS if Amazon Sues Oracle on day one after the ruling for their copying of the S3 API. That said there are ALL KINDS of interop code that is at risk with the ruling, only people with their heads in the sand and do not understand the industry at all believe that nothing negative will come about if this ruling stands
  - tylerchr 6y ago
    > That said there are ALL KINDS of interop code that is at risk with the ruling Yes, there are parties that stand to lose a lot in the short term from a decision for Oracle. But would it be so bad in the long term if proprietary vendor-specific protocols were put at a disadvantage? Maybe back-to-basics open protocols (or at least protocols formally contributed to the public domain) would resurge, and interoperability would actually _increase._
    - syshum 6y ago
      Yes because the entire history of software industry shows what the problems are with Vendor Lock-in and how it will be abused Oracle is a case book study if it, that is their entire business model

nojito 6y ago

>What's worse for Google is that code has always been considered copyrightable so arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code. Congress would have made that exemption when they made the law in the first place. >A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. This is an important fact people keep forgetting. Asking the Court to bluntly create legislation is never ever going to happen.

ChuckMcM 6y ago

I am surprised that Google's legal team would forward such lame arguments. There are much better lawyers out there with a much stronger ability to convey complex topics to non-technical people in a way that illustrates the point under consideration.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
Such as?
- ChuckMcM 6y ago
  Well I found Justice Breyer's argument, in the article, which compared APIs to the QWERTY layout of keyboards much better than Googles. Imagine if you copyrighted the six sided bolt head? Or the TORX screw. Making screw drivers or wrenches that loosened or tightened them would be copyrightable. How about copyrighting which side of the street people drive on, or the width of driving lanes. Do we get to charge a "usage fee" for cars that adhere to the lanes available on freeways?

Aerroon 6y ago

>As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. An API doesn't require an implementation and copyright is handed out automatically. Could I then write and run a generator that just starts spitting out endless variations of possible APIs (combinations of dictionary words?). Does that mean I would end up holding the copyright for most of the 'common sense' APIs people would want to use for software projects?

dannyw 6y ago
No, that doesn't feature sufficient creativity.
- imtringued 6y ago
  That's patent law. Copyright law is automatic and will always be granted which is why it's absolutely stupid to add patent law features to copyright.

tomatocracy 6y ago

Naive question: how and why is this different from the various precedents which allowed "clean room" reimplementation of an interface/API?

yk 6y ago
That is precisely the question, is a clean room reimplementation copyright infringement? And of course, this is Google doing a clean room implementation of the famously litigious Oracle's code, so we get basically laboratory conditions.

andrewjl 6y ago

Having read multiple perspectives, some pro-Google and some pro-Oracle, I cannot reconcile this sort of argument with the Baker v. Selden precedent. [1] Perhaps my understanding of APIs is different because I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, but how is this not an open and shut case? The cookbook analogy is not applicable for the same reason one could not apply it in Baker, accounting methods are not of themselves copyrightable creative works. (They may be patentable, but I believe patentability is NOT at issue here.) Selecting and arranging recipes requires creativity. I do not believe API code of a math library is in any way the same level, having designed hundreds of APIs and several SDKs myself. Perhaps creating a specification upon which the API design based upon is, but that leads right back to Baker. What am I missing here? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden Edit: And if you think about it, an API code is really just a set of templated forms for conveyance of data between systems. In this sense it is really no different from the accounting ledger templates in Baker. Second edit: It would be worthwhile to enlighten the judges on the early history of computer programs and their ties to recipes which should make the cookbook analogy and its potential misapplication here even more obvious. Third edit: Another line of enquiry would be to discuss differences between API contracts and APIs. They are not the same, though often confused, even by practicing software engineers.

interpol_p 6y ago
I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic I design an API for graphical coding and spend significant creative energy choosing the right words, calling conventions, result types to not only make something intuitive, but emotionally pleasurable to code with Sometimes I'll spend days writing out possible forms of the API — changing words, tense, syntax, until it looks and feels "right." These aren't arbitrary or purely functional decisions Do I want my users to "read" text from a file, or "open" the file? Do I want them to handle keyboard events in a simple global function or assign callbacks into a keyboard handler under each character name. How are those callbacks shaped? What's easy to understand? APIs aren't just restricted simple functions and types. Some may involve the creation of a custom DSL to make it easy to declare functionality in part of your system, or clusters of protocols that work together in very specific ways so users can implement a complex system atop them

happythomist 6y ago

One solution might be for the Supreme Court to acknowledge that APIs are copyrightable, but that re-implementations are always fair use.

mrh0057 6y ago

Saying an API is copyright means no Linux, no alternative compilers or runtimes, etc. Clearance Thomas saying it’s copyrightable because it’s like having another football team playbook is incorrect. It’s equivalent having the copyright on diagraming a play. An api doesn’t include implementation.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Yep. "It would set such terrible precedent for the industry that nobody even thought to ask the question before" doesn't imply it's not what the law says.

dustingetz 6y ago

so iterate this 50 more years (rules inevitably are both applied and no longer applicable) and law/society collapses

billfruit 6y ago

Are anthologies of poems copy writable? I thought not.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Are anthologies of poems copy writable? I thought not. Then you thought wrong[0]. While the poems themselves may be copyrighted by others, the editor (presumably getting license/permission from copyright holders of said poems) organizes the poems in the anthology. The resulting work is copyrightable in its own right. Check out the link below and the copyrights on each anthology. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/03/top-10-poetry-anthologies https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/03/top-10-poetry-...
andrewjl 6y ago
Different from this case, anthologies imply curation which is a legitimately creative act.
please-reread 6y ago
"copy writable" ? what does writability has to do with anything?

sergeykish 6y ago

Is file format copyrightable? That's a cookbook how to extract data. Is binary API copyrightable? That's a cookbook too. Is API as build target copyrightable? I just want this code to run. Is processor ISA copyrightable? I have to put gas in tank, oil in engine, water in cooling system for car to run. I have to press clutch, turn a key for engine to start. Is this copyrightable? Every thing is creative. There are many ways to make same thing. Sometimes we care not about creativity but compatibility. Qemu runs x86, ARM. Open Office opens Microsoft Word files. Google Cloud Storage is interoperable with Amazon S3 [1]. I can construct my own client. And yet we have PNG, OGG, AV1, RISC-V — there are some issues with MP3 (patent), GIF (patent), H.264 (patent), x86 (patent), ARM. [1] https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/interoperability https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/interoperability

tylerchr 6y ago
> Is {X} copyrightable? Evidently yes, to the extent that {X} includes subjective properties that go beyond the fundamental function of {X}. To use file formats as an example, the fundamental function of an archive file format is to bundle a set of otherwise-independent files together. A basic archive file format that simply concatenates file contents together (and I guess the necessary header to identify the boundaries between them) wouldn’t be copyrightable. But a more advanced format that includes an index of included files might be, since the addition of the index is a product of some artistry by someone who thought it would be a helpful convenience for users. [1] Extended to the car example, “putting gas in tank” wouldn’t be copyrightable because no tank can function without gas. But improvements to the method of transferring that gas might be. Engaging a clutch is fundamental to the operation of a transmission and not copyrightable, but a clutch that is specially-designed to require less force might be. The key is an interesting case though... I suppose I’d have to say that mechanism would have been copyrightable, since one could start an engine in ways other than a key (maybe a crank or a push button), or perhaps because the idea to couple the unlocking mechanism to the engine start signal was a clever idea rather than a fundamental necessity. [1]: To my understanding, this is exactly the situation with “tar” and “zip,” though fortunately for us the “zip” format was contributed to the public domain rather than copyrighted.

monadic2 6y ago

There's nothing precluding the legal analysis you've outlined from stemming from a poor understanding of the underlying technology. Just because the legal reasoning is internally sound doesn't mean the resulting narrative makes any sense when applied to reality, and it hardly is the only possible internally sound judgement. There is plenty of room for arbitrary semantics (and I would argue actively harmful and ignorant semantics) to dominate the resulting judgement.

hannasanarion 6y ago

The cookbook analogy falls apart as soon as you question whether creativity is implied. Sure, there is some creativity in putting "cookies" and "bundt cake" together in the Dessert chapter. Is there really any creativity in putting "log" and "pi" in the Math package? APIs aren't cookbooks, they are toolboxes, and Oracle is claiming to own the idea of putting your Flathead next to your Phillips

c3534l 6y ago

I think the fact that you can copyright which recipes are in a cookbook is on the level of an API, which is why I think its absurd the government grants exclusive ownership for such a thing. I don't know how we got to this point where we think any of this is a natural or sane state of affairs.

shmerl 6y ago

API itself is already a specific compilation (of function signatures). But it's still meta information, not actual information on the implementation of the functionality. Making API copyrightable is absurd and harmful, same as it's absurd to copyright abstract concepts. European judges got that right.

andrewjl 6y ago
Exactly this, the meta information point is spot on. IIRC there is durable precedent that mechanical collections of information w/ no creative "touch" are ineligible for copyright. I wonder if that can be extended to the meta information definition you came up with.

mongol 6y ago

Yes and we should not forget that min and max are not just methods with names, they have a contract too and should behave in a certain way. For these examples thus might not seem like a big deal, but the contract must apply for all methods, even non-trivial ones.

diffeomorphism 6y ago

> the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. But what is discussed here is not the cookbook but just the table of contents. The actual recipes are different. Making another cookbook with chapter 1: salads, chapter 2: soups etc. is common practice. The question is how much detail you are allowed to copy in order to allow for interoperability. For instance, a dinner might call for the Oracle potato salad of Section 1.3 and Oracle tomato soup of Section 2.2. If your cookbook has your recipes (not Oracle's) in the same Sections in your book, that is useful for your readers/chefs, since they can easily switch their menus to your book. Are you allowed to do that? That is the question. > arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code. Disagree. APIs are talking about code but not code by themselves alone. Just like "The potato salad recipe is in Section 1.3" talks about a recipe but is decidedly not a recipe by itself. If the law currently thinks that should be copyrightable, then the law should be changed.

thomasahle 6y ago
>> the cookbook itself becomes copyrightable. > But what is discussed here is not the cookbook but just the table of contents. You probably can't copy that either. That's like Oracle's example of making a new Harry Potter book with all the same chapter titles. I don't know if there are any good examples of APIs one can make based on books..
- diffeomorphism 6y ago
  I mean you very much can copy Chapter 1: Introducing the main character .. Chapter 6: Introducing side character Chapter 7: Arrival at the main story place .. Chapter 17: The final chapter In fact there are whole classifications of literature that identify basic storylines, tropes, structure etc. . The reason you couldn't copy the harry potter chapter titles exactly is because they contain specific titles, e.g. "the boy who lived", but "<my own catchphrase for main character>" as the first chapter title is again very, very common. Also, the argument is about reuse/interoperability. Recipes are something you use and the naming is functional and it is important that it is similar enough. I am not aware of harry potter chapters being used like that, but if authors start talking about "The sorting hat" chapter as a term of the art , then yes you should be able to use that term. Similarly to how you can introduce a weapon in your novel without paying royalties to Chekhov.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

>What's worse for Google is that code has always been considered copyrightable so arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code. That's another aspect. API isn't code, only implementation produces executable code, API only helps ensure that those chunks of code fit together, like book's spine holds pages together and in order.

manojlds 6y ago
If APIs are like book spine I don't know why teams are spending so much time designing and thinking about their APIs. Just slap on a "book spine" and get to writing code you procrastinating devs.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

> What's worse for Google is that code has always been considered copyrightable so arguing that APIs are non-copyrightable is essentially carving out an exception for a specific type of code. Not exactly; an API can be completely re-implemented from scratch and still be compatible. If it was just about the API code, there wouldn't even be a case. The idea that an API could legally be an "original work of authorship" makes a lot of sense; but the technical implications could indeed harm the industry overall. Essentially what this means is: I build a system, you're not allowed to build a compatible system. Yet another reason why open source is the only way forward.

imtringued 6y ago
>The idea that an API could legally be an "original work of authorship" makes a lot of sense; but the technical implications could indeed harm the industry overall. It doesn't make sense because an API doesn't exist in the work. Copyrighting APIs is functionally useless because you can have multiple works with the same API without violating copyright through clean room designs. Therefore whatever protection you want should cover more than one work. Copyright only covers the works you create yourself. It doesn't cover works that other people create even when they are directly inspired by your works. We have patent law for this.

m12k 6y ago

> As applied to Java, individual method signatures like min and max might not be copyrightable, but someone had to go in and organize those individual methods into classes, and organize those classes into packages. That act of organization likely implies that the Java API (taken as a whole) constitutes a copyrightable work, even if the individual method signatures are not. As an IP-minimalist, I'm surprised anyone can look at the mental gymnastics that people go through in order to draw some arbitrary line between acceptable and unacceptable copying, and come to any other conclusion than "this whole system is ludicrous".

sergeykish 6y ago

> Corona Data Systems, Eagle Computer, and Handwell Corporation, were successfully sued by IBM for copyright infringement in 1984, and were forced to re-implement their BIOS in a way which did not infringe IBM's copyrights [1]. > To develop a legal BIOS, Phoenix used a clean room design [2]. I think there was some creative process in designing BIOS. There is no difference between binary and text format, it is just a serialization. WASM text format and binary format. Java source and bytecode. API documentation is certainly copyrightable, even text definition file. A lot of creative process goes to putting braces, spaces, commas, naming static double min(double a, double b) versus static double min (double x, double y) both would be valid reimplementation of java interface. Yes, problem is copyright law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies

imtringued 6y ago
>API documentation is certainly copyrightable, even text definition file. A lot of creative process goes to putting braces, spaces, commas, naming Yes but it is useless. You can e.g. copyright an electronics schematic. People aren't allowed to copy it and sell it but they can build the device that is being described by the schematic and then they can create their own schematic based on the device they have created. That's why we have patents.

cookiengineer 6y ago

Someone could also argue your analogy with a cookbook is wrong, because if we talk about headers and APIs, it's more like Oracle claiming that their stove's interface to the pot is copyrightable. How is heat transferred to the pot? From the stove to the pot, this is the API, and how it's implemented doesn't matter. Oracle claims that this specific thing, that you turn on any button and make it heat up is copyrightable. But we all know that a stove is useless without that API. We would have to buy a whole new kitchen equipment for all stoves that we are going to buy. A further question is: When will it end with copyright claims? I mean, at somepoint somebody will claim that the effing powerplug is also copyrightable. But we all know that nobody (speaking of % of the population) even has the skills to connect a device without a power plug without potentially harming themselves. All technology is useless without APIs. Nonetheless I think that copyright laws is essentially full of flaws here, because if we focus on speech alone (of which most copyright laws are based on), someone might even argue that specific words are copyrightable if they are "uncommon enough".

thu2111 6y ago
Tortured analogies like this is why the whole software industry is going to be making a surprised pikachu face when Oracle wins (see my comment a day or two ago on the prior story for substantially similar sentiment). Heat transfer to a pot is not an API, not even remotely close. It's a physical fact that has been observed since the stone age. The Java API is huge. It's not a mere physical fact, nor even a collection of method prototypes. It's everything covered in the JavaDocs: what happens in error scenarios, thread safety rules, how objects are combined to get different effects, what you can subclass and what's not, what security permissions things need. It's enormous and every decision in that was a 'creative' decision, in some sense. From a plain reading of copyright law it's obvious APIs far smaller and simpler than Java should fall under copyright. The idea APIs don't is a convenient consensus-quo for the software industry that benefits competition and should probably be preserved, although there is the counterbalancing factor that the non-protectability of APIs probably has invisible side effects we can't see (e.g. under-investment in API design). But the Supreme Court won't or shouldn't care about any of that because it's a political debate. The question before them is about what the current law says, and on that, Oracle probably have a point. Also, it's going to be even more fashionable to hate on Oracle if they do win, but the current situation has always been legally fragile. Sooner or later someone would have observed the apparent skew between the software industry's approach to copyright and what the law really says. We may be at least somewhat grateful that it's a fight between two well resourced firms and not e.g. a patent troll firm type of situation, where the defenders are threatened and have to pay up because they're too small to fight it.

sriku 6y ago

Interesting point. If I implement, say, the List interface for a class in my program, have I violated the API copyright?

gameswithgo 6y ago

When you can wrangle the analogies in reasonable ways in either direction, why not wrangle them in ways that make the tech industry sane, rather than insane?

kovacs_x 6y ago

Maybe instead of comparing to cookbooks we should compare an API's to technical standards? (think ISO)