3 ms·
Substantiality was only one factor in the decision. There were lots of others, such as raison d'être of copyright, "promoting the progress of science and art".
by moron4hire 6y ago
Substantiality was only one factor in the decision. There were lots of others, such as raison d'être of copyright, "promoting the progress of science and art". Because allowing copying of APIs is more important to the "progress of science and art" than the economic impact on the creator of the API, APIs are thusly not copyrightable.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> APIs are thusly not copyrightable This is NOT what the Court found. At the very top of the Opinion, it says "we assume, for argument’s sake, that the material was copyrightable. But we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use."
- moron4hire 6y agoFair enough. I had taken that to mean they were assuming a given to then prove the negative.