8 ms·

Why should it have been evaluated first? I understand the intuition you're getting at: logically, the first question could make the second irrelevant. But if t

Why should it have been evaluated first? I understand the intuition you're getting at: logically, the first question could make the second irrelevant. But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question?

ghaff 6y ago
IANAL, but I can imagine something like the following: A. We decide this is fair use based on the small number of LOC used and call it a day B. OR we can decide that APIs are not copyrightable even though they're self-evidently creative works because of the importance of interoperability based on something something related to Borland v. Lotus, a case that we couldn't agree on the last time it came up. Hey folks. Let's do A.
- Gh0stRAT 6y ago
  While I agree that APIs should not be copyrightable, the Supreme Court has been criticized for "legislating from the bench". Avoiding the temptation to set bigger and more far-reaching precedents than is strictly necessary for the case at hand avoids giving the impression that the judicial branch is doing the job of the legislative branch.
  - hctaw 6y ago
    This is something I struggle with, personally. I have fundamental problems with an unelected council that serves for life creating law. However, we have an extremely inefficient form of Government that doesn't allow for quick adaptation, and legal questions will arise tomorrow that did not occur to legislators today. The courts are supposed to help resolve any ambiguity. The question over whether or not APIs are copyrightable is, however, not a question of ambiguity. APIs are software (or documentation, or source code, etc), and any category you place them into is copyrightable under the current law. If we don't want APIs to be copyrightable, then they must have explicit exemptions carved out in the law. The courts are bound to consider an API as copyrighted right now, and the only question is whether violating that copyright is fair-use. I think the Court did the right thing in skirting the question. That's up to legislators, the Court cannot help. We need fundamental reform of IP protections for software anyway.
    - sprayk 6y ago
      Slow legislation is a feature rather than a bug. Less opportunity for reactionary laws based on emotion or a collective misunderstanding of events that we later regret. It's not a perfect deterrent, obviously, e.g. the Patriot Act
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Cipyright law needed reform for like 40 years. Thre is slow, and there is dysfunctional
        ghaff 6y ago
        However, the main reform that people are asking for is a shortening of copyright terms which really isn't a factor that plays into this case or, for the most part, with computer software generally. One can imagine copyright reform that broadly and explicitly exempts interfaces from at least copyright protection but that has generally not been one of the top issues historically.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        Copyright law has received many reforms over the last 40 years. It may not have received the particular reforms you want, but that’s a very different issue.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        It doesnt matter what I want, it has not addressed the issues that need to be adressed, in either way.
    - TimTheTinker 6y ago
      > We need fundamental reform of IP protections for software anyway. That really is the root issue here. So many problems we're seeing (Pai's clownshow in the FCC, SCOTUS legislating from the bench, federal agencies trampling citizens' rights, etc.) stem from the legislative branch abdicating their authority to third parties -- the librarian of Congress, the FCC, SCOTUS, and even (by legal reference) professional organizations and laws in other countries. It's ridiculous. A first principle of a democratic government is that citizens can soon fire someone whose legislation and/or executive decision they do not like. We would all have voted Pai out if we could have... but he shouldn't have had the power to do what he did in the first place (remove network neutrality rules). Congress gave him that power - which I would argue was an abdication of authority vested in them.
  - spacemanmatt 6y ago
    AFAIK, the Court's overt mission is to interpret and regulate the intent of Congress. They literally must legislate from the bench where Congress has left them an obligation to do so. And Congress can legislate when they feel the Court has taken too much liberty with interpretation or regulation. But I really do think this case falls squarely inside the parameters of "interpretation" as most members would see it.
  - azernik 6y ago
    That is part of the dynamic. More importantly, though, a narrow decision makes a broad decision easier. If some justices think the code isn't copyrightable, they can increase their voting power by agreeing to set a less sweeping precedent that more justices agree with.
  - hluska 6y ago
    With what I know of Amy Coney Barrett, I’m very surprised she had no part in this decision. You did an absolutely wonderful job of explaining her whole feeling on the bench in two paragraphs. Seriously friend, that’s some excellent writing - excellent excellent job!!
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      The case was argued weeks before Barrett was confirmed to the court.
      - hluska 6y ago
        That’s the perfect explanation!!! :) I’m dumb - thanks so much!!!!
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > Avoiding the temptation to set bigger and more far-reaching precedents than is strictly necessary for the case at hand avoids giving the impression that the judicial branch is doing the job of the legislative branch. Well, that's the theory. In fact, they are doing the job of the legislative branch, they can't stop people from noticing this, and sticking to this approach just means they're doing their job badly.
- bcrosby95 6y ago
  This is what the Supreme Court does in general. They decide on the narrowest of rulings possible.
- dctoedt 6y ago
  > Hey folks. Let's do A. In an earlier concurring opinion when he was on the D.C. Circuit — i.e., before joining the Supreme Court as Chief Justice of the United States (his official title) — John Roberts referred to "... the cardinal principle of judicial restraint — if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more ...." [0] [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1927857743263044592 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=192785774326304...
btilly 6y ago
But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question? The main influence of the Supreme Court is in setting precedent. In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. That means that the most important precedents set in this case are still an issue for the software industry.
- azernik 6y ago
  > In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. This is not true - other circuit courts are free to set their own, conflicting precedent. Each circuit's decisions are binding only on its own judges, and suggestive but not binding on other circuits. Circuits deciding differently (a "circuit split") is uncommon, and considered urgent grounds for the Supreme Court to take up a test case to resolve the ambiguity; but it's not considered a "breaking" of precedent by either circuit, just a difference of interpretation for the Supreme Court to resolve
  - btilly 6y ago
    For most circuits what you say would be true. But the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is special. As http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction says, their jurisdiction is national and determined by subject matter. That said I do not actually know whether they would be binding on another circuit court. But they are definitely binding on all federal courts lower than that. However that question is sort of moot. It is extremely easy for the entity filing the case for infringement to include something about patent or trademark in the suit, which guarantees that you wind up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Where that ruling is binding.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago

ghaff 6y ago

IANAL, but I can imagine something like the following: A. We decide this is fair use based on the small number of LOC used and call it a day B. OR we can decide that APIs are not copyrightable even though they're self-evidently creative works because of the importance of interoperability based on something something related to Borland v. Lotus, a case that we couldn't agree on the last time it came up. Hey folks. Let's do A.

Gh0stRAT 6y ago
While I agree that APIs should not be copyrightable, the Supreme Court has been criticized for "legislating from the bench". Avoiding the temptation to set bigger and more far-reaching precedents than is strictly necessary for the case at hand avoids giving the impression that the judicial branch is doing the job of the legislative branch.
- hctaw 6y ago
  This is something I struggle with, personally. I have fundamental problems with an unelected council that serves for life creating law. However, we have an extremely inefficient form of Government that doesn't allow for quick adaptation, and legal questions will arise tomorrow that did not occur to legislators today. The courts are supposed to help resolve any ambiguity. The question over whether or not APIs are copyrightable is, however, not a question of ambiguity. APIs are software (or documentation, or source code, etc), and any category you place them into is copyrightable under the current law. If we don't want APIs to be copyrightable, then they must have explicit exemptions carved out in the law. The courts are bound to consider an API as copyrighted right now, and the only question is whether violating that copyright is fair-use. I think the Court did the right thing in skirting the question. That's up to legislators, the Court cannot help. We need fundamental reform of IP protections for software anyway.
  - sprayk 6y ago
    Slow legislation is a feature rather than a bug. Less opportunity for reactionary laws based on emotion or a collective misunderstanding of events that we later regret. It's not a perfect deterrent, obviously, e.g. the Patriot Act
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Cipyright law needed reform for like 40 years. Thre is slow, and there is dysfunctional
      - ghaff 6y ago
        However, the main reform that people are asking for is a shortening of copyright terms which really isn't a factor that plays into this case or, for the most part, with computer software generally. One can imagine copyright reform that broadly and explicitly exempts interfaces from at least copyright protection but that has generally not been one of the top issues historically.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        Copyright law has received many reforms over the last 40 years. It may not have received the particular reforms you want, but that’s a very different issue.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        It doesnt matter what I want, it has not addressed the issues that need to be adressed, in either way.
  - TimTheTinker 6y ago
    > We need fundamental reform of IP protections for software anyway. That really is the root issue here. So many problems we're seeing (Pai's clownshow in the FCC, SCOTUS legislating from the bench, federal agencies trampling citizens' rights, etc.) stem from the legislative branch abdicating their authority to third parties -- the librarian of Congress, the FCC, SCOTUS, and even (by legal reference) professional organizations and laws in other countries. It's ridiculous. A first principle of a democratic government is that citizens can soon fire someone whose legislation and/or executive decision they do not like. We would all have voted Pai out if we could have... but he shouldn't have had the power to do what he did in the first place (remove network neutrality rules). Congress gave him that power - which I would argue was an abdication of authority vested in them.
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  AFAIK, the Court's overt mission is to interpret and regulate the intent of Congress. They literally must legislate from the bench where Congress has left them an obligation to do so. And Congress can legislate when they feel the Court has taken too much liberty with interpretation or regulation. But I really do think this case falls squarely inside the parameters of "interpretation" as most members would see it.
- azernik 6y ago
  That is part of the dynamic. More importantly, though, a narrow decision makes a broad decision easier. If some justices think the code isn't copyrightable, they can increase their voting power by agreeing to set a less sweeping precedent that more justices agree with.
- hluska 6y ago
  With what I know of Amy Coney Barrett, I’m very surprised she had no part in this decision. You did an absolutely wonderful job of explaining her whole feeling on the bench in two paragraphs. Seriously friend, that’s some excellent writing - excellent excellent job!!
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    The case was argued weeks before Barrett was confirmed to the court.
    - hluska 6y ago
      That’s the perfect explanation!!! :) I’m dumb - thanks so much!!!!
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > Avoiding the temptation to set bigger and more far-reaching precedents than is strictly necessary for the case at hand avoids giving the impression that the judicial branch is doing the job of the legislative branch. Well, that's the theory. In fact, they are doing the job of the legislative branch, they can't stop people from noticing this, and sticking to this approach just means they're doing their job badly.
bcrosby95 6y ago
This is what the Supreme Court does in general. They decide on the narrowest of rulings possible.
dctoedt 6y ago
> Hey folks. Let's do A. In an earlier concurring opinion when he was on the D.C. Circuit — i.e., before joining the Supreme Court as Chief Justice of the United States (his official title) — John Roberts referred to "... the cardinal principle of judicial restraint — if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more ...." [0] [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1927857743263044592 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=192785774326304...

btilly 6y ago

But if the second question resolves the issue even when the first is construed in favor of the other party, what's the rationale for demanding the court focus on the first question? The main influence of the Supreme Court is in setting precedent. In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. That means that the most important precedents set in this case are still an issue for the software industry.

azernik 6y ago
> In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the previous ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding precedent on the whole country that APIs are copyrightable. This is not true - other circuit courts are free to set their own, conflicting precedent. Each circuit's decisions are binding only on its own judges, and suggestive but not binding on other circuits. Circuits deciding differently (a "circuit split") is uncommon, and considered urgent grounds for the Supreme Court to take up a test case to resolve the ambiguity; but it's not considered a "breaking" of precedent by either circuit, just a difference of interpretation for the Supreme Court to resolve
- btilly 6y ago
  For most circuits what you say would be true. But the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is special. As http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction says, their jurisdiction is national and determined by subject matter. That said I do not actually know whether they would be binding on another circuit court. But they are definitely binding on all federal courts lower than that. However that question is sort of moot. It is extremely easy for the entity filing the case for infringement to include something about patent or trademark in the suit, which guarantees that you wind up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Where that ruling is binding.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago