3 ms·

"Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not a market substitute for Java SE." Does this mean that companies copying the S3 API as a su

"Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not a market substitute for Java SE." Does this mean that companies copying the S3 API as a substitute for S3 are still untested territory?

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
Another way to read that would be that the S3 API isn't a substitute for S3, and so another company using the S3 API could be fine so long as they don't copy the code for S3 itself? My impression is that this is probably nuanced enough we need to read past the syllabus if we wanted to really unpack the reasoning. I can't tell which is the key part from which to make an analogy.
comex 6y ago
Theoretically, yes. But such companies would also have the ability to argue that their API was fully interoperable with S3, a factor counseling in favor of fair use. Google could have talked about interoperability in this case too, but for some reason didn't; see my other comment [1]. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26701488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26701488
smsm42 6y ago
Strictly speaking, yes - this decision, as many other SCOTUS decisions, is tailored to specific case and leaves the other situations to be argued on their own merits. But having definite precedent in the situation where API has been recognized as non-copyrightable both sends signal to the lower courts about where SCOTUS leans, and to the potential plaintiffs about their chances to ultimately prevail. It is not a definite solution for all cases, but it shifts the calculus to the side of "if you sue for copyright infringement about S3 API, it'd be an uphill battle for you and probability to lose is high".
- ghayes 6y ago
  And remember that Fair Use is a four-part balancing test. Thus, a single factor shifting will still have to be weighed against the rest. Also, for the S3 APIs, you're also talking about using even _less_ of Amazon's copyrighted code (e.g. a dozen function signatures compared to millions of LoC).

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

Another way to read that would be that the S3 API isn't a substitute for S3, and so another company using the S3 API could be fine so long as they don't copy the code for S3 itself? My impression is that this is probably nuanced enough we need to read past the syllabus if we wanted to really unpack the reasoning. I can't tell which is the key part from which to make an analogy.

comex 6y ago

Theoretically, yes. But such companies would also have the ability to argue that their API was fully interoperable with S3, a factor counseling in favor of fair use. Google could have talked about interoperability in this case too, but for some reason didn't; see my other comment [1]. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26701488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26701488

smsm42 6y ago

Strictly speaking, yes - this decision, as many other SCOTUS decisions, is tailored to specific case and leaves the other situations to be argued on their own merits. But having definite precedent in the situation where API has been recognized as non-copyrightable both sends signal to the lower courts about where SCOTUS leans, and to the potential plaintiffs about their chances to ultimately prevail. It is not a definite solution for all cases, but it shifts the calculus to the side of "if you sue for copyright infringement about S3 API, it'd be an uphill battle for you and probability to lose is high".

ghayes 6y ago
And remember that Fair Use is a four-part balancing test. Thus, a single factor shifting will still have to be weighed against the rest. Also, for the S3 APIs, you're also talking about using even _less_ of Amazon's copyrighted code (e.g. a dozen function signatures compared to millions of LoC).