13 ms·

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. It is even less decisive than you'

by btilly 6y ago

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. It is even less decisive than you're saying. The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are. And for fair use, one of the statutory factors is the "effect" of the copying on the "market for or value of the copyrighted work." That said, this case does establish a precedent that if your copying of an API is primarily for purposes of matching an interface so that developers can reimplement it, you're in fair use territory: The fact that one statutory factor points one way doesn't stop another from pointing the other. And part of their decision is the conclusion that Google's copying increased the value of Java. That will generally not be true when APIs get copied. In particular if I am trying to create a product that competes with yours, and I copy your API for the purpose of interoperability, I'm going to have an uphill battle claiming fair use. Because my product directly reduces the market for your product. To name some historically important examples, Microsoft copied the APIs for JavaScript from Netscape, Microsoft copied APIs from Lotus 1-2-3 for Excel, and Wine copied APIs from Windows for Linux. The outcomes famously were that Netscape went out of business, Lotus 1-2-3 was discontinued, and Linux became somewhat more viable.

curt15 6y ago
>The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are. Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. As it does not have original jurisdiction in copyright disputes (only patent cases), it doesn't supercede any copyrightability rulings in other circuits, for instance the 1st circuit's holding in Lotus v Borland that the Lotus macros were not copyrightable as a "method of operation". And today's opinion cites Lotus v Borland several times even though the original 1996 Supreme Court case was deadlocked at 4-4.
- wtallis 6y ago
  > Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. I think it's even narrower than that: the Federal Circuit's ruling on non-patent aspects of the case isn't binding precedent outside of Oracle v. Google. District courts in the Ninth Circuit and the appeals court are free to ignore the Federal Circuit ruling in future cases and look to only rulings from the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court as binding precedent.
- btilly 6y ago
  Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. No, not only 9th circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding nationwide. And if the case includes claims about patents and/or trademarks, even if those specific claims are thrown out, then the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit becomes the court that the case is appealed to. Which is how this particular case wound up there in the first place.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    When ruling on aspects of a case that fall outside of their subject matter jurisdiction (eg. copyright rather than patents), the Federal Circuit is supposed to follow the local circuit's precedent, ie. rule how they think the Ninth Circuit would have ruled on those issues. And my understanding is that the Federal Circuit's rulings on eg. the copyright aspects of a case like this do not overturn Ninth Circuit copyright precedent and do not establish new copyright precedent anywhere, not even the Federal Circuit (since in future cases they will again be required to apply the relevant local circuit's copyright precedents as they exist at that time). The Federal Circuit's copyright decision is binding on the parties to the case at hand, but the precedent for future cases is non-binding at best. This was one of the arguments that the FSF and SFLC put forth in their amicus brief recommending that the Supreme Court not take up Google's appeal of the API copyright question: > The court below predicted, on the basis of no compelling evidence, that the Ninth Circuit would depart from settled existing law in a novel direction which, as amici supporting the petition have said at length, would be destructive alike of commercial certainty and freedom to implement, thus inhibiting the progress of science and the useful arts. Neither the Ninth Circuit nor any other regional Court of Appeals is likely to defer to this improbable supposition, so the error is largely self-limiting. Such erroneous predictions of other courts’ holdings are not a suitable employment of this Court’s scarce resources in review by certiorari.
halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
I wonder how this would effect things like Preact too, which for operability sake, uses the exact same API as React.
- anamexis 6y ago
  In that specific example, I don't think it would really affect them, since both React and Preact are MIT licensed.
  - Natanael_L 6y ago
    One of the issues here is that it's not even clear under which license the API should be covered. Does the existing software license also cover the API, or must it be explicitly defined? What happens when an API is co-created by different software developers which each creates their own software under different licenses, through communications which themselves aren't explicitly licensed (like over email lists), and then summarize what they agree on in text instead of code (like the RFC process)? At no point have either one of them explicitly given permission to use their respective contributions under another license. Even if they agree that the RFC text is public domain, that technically do not extend to implementations of the API which it describes (as those are different works!). And there exists no official reference code with legal approval from all contributors, whose license could be adopted by other developers. It would be such a mess...
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > both React and Preact are MIT licensed. Huh, I had no idea the React license wasn't still "you're free to use React unless you ever assert a patent against Facebook".
    - elyobo 6y ago
      Concern about the licensing was eventually sufficient that they resolved it a few years back.
- 0df8dkdf 6y ago
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are No, it doesn’t. Because the Court expressly declined to examine the question, the CAFC decision is binding only where it would have been without the Supreme Court decision, i.e., those courts bound by the CAFC’s interpration of how Ninth Circuit law applies. As it turns out, that is exactly zero courts. The reason the Supreme Court often likes to find the narrowest grounds possible for a decision is to avoid making more binding case law than is called for; giving the lower court rulings on all questions not addressed (including those the Supreme Court explicitly avoids) the same binding effect as the actual Supreme Court holding would defeat the purpose, and it is very much not how things work.
- DannyBee 6y ago
  It was zero courts before, too, no? CAFC does not have natural jurisdiction over copyright and thus always applies circuit law. Here, this was also a 3-judge panel of the federal circuit, and en banc review was denied. Those decisions are already not binding on future 3-judge panels IIRC (it's been a while, honestly), and definitely not binding on the circuits
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It was zero courts before, too, no? Right, and I think this played an important role in why the Supreme Court ducked API copyrightability; they’d rather not do so absent a binding lower circuit decision, or especially a conflict between circuits, preferring to let the issue percolate (and also provide Congress more time to intervene) of there is another basis dor resolving particular cases with less sweeping impact.
WalterBright 6y ago
Lotus' failure was more because they failed to port to Windows, betting instead on OS/2. Lotus was at a crossroads. DOS was obsolete, was the future OS/2 or Windows? They chose OS/2. Lotus was a big, cash rich company at the time. Their fatal error was not realizing they should have ported 1-2-3 to both OS/2 and Windows. Then they would have been secure regardless of which prevailed.
- hnick 6y ago
  Lotus 1-2-3 was on Windows so I think I am missing some context here around version differences?
  - __d 6y ago
    Timing, IIRC. Lotus was late to Windows, opening the door for Excel.
    - hnick 6y ago
      Yeah it seems to be 1989 v 1991 based on the wiki but it also sounds like there might be some version differences. 2 years was a long time back then.
      - jolux 6y ago
        It's still a long time! You try being two years later to a major market than Microsoft and still beating them. How often has that happened?
        Gaelan 6y ago
        Windows Mobile/iOS? Arguably Office and Google Docs.
        jolux 6y ago
        Google Docs was released 20 years after Office, after Office had already killed all the rest of its competition in the early 90s. iOS is a good example though. Windows Mobile had not yet come to dominate the market.
WalterBright 6y ago
Netscape went out of business because their browser crashed far more frequently than Explorer. I've heard all the sob stories, but I was sick of the constant crashing of Netscape, and so tried Explorer. Explorer crashed too, but not nearly as often.
- mceachen 6y ago
  FWIW, Netscape got bought out by AOL, but not before it spun off Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape It may be hard to believe, but the first iteration of Internet Explorer on Macintosh (back on System 8) was __solid__. IE, at least on PowerMacs, was way faster and more reliable than either NCSA Mosaic or Navigator.
  - kibwen 6y ago
    Hell, AOL still runs Netscape as a discount ISP, same logo since 1999 and everything: https://isp.netscape.com https://isp.netscape.com
    - torstenvl 6y ago
      God that's a beautiful website. Loads fast. Not too many graphics. Nothing moves unless I tell it to.
  - collinmanderson 6y ago
    > Netscape got bought out by AOL That makes it sound like Netscape had no say in the matter. Netscape sold itself to AOL.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      "Bought out" is a common enough way to describe any company sale. "Sold itself" introduces way more unnecessary sub-textual baggage just by being a more unusual construction.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
scomp 6y ago
What about Microsoft J# or Microsoft J++? A directly relatable example.
collinmanderson 6y ago
DOS also copied APIs from CP/M (though that was before Microsoft bought it I assume)
ConceptJunkie 6y ago
To be fair, Netscape lost because their product, at the time, was inferior. Netscape blew IE out of the water at first, but IE kept getting better. Netscape 3 was excellent, but when IE 4 came out, it was just better. Then came Netscape 4. 'Nuff said. Lotus couldn't make the transition to Windows, and so lost to Excel (and perhaps Quattro Pro... it's been a long time and I don't remember details). This had nothing to do with copying APIs. Of course, it probably had everything to do with Microsoft's anti-competitive advantage by having access to Windows internals and undocumented features, but that's another matter.
kmeisthax 6y ago
I should point out that in the Ninth Circuit, there's already plenty of strong, citeable precedent in favor of fair use for the purpose of interoperability; separate from the purpose of programmer convenience that the Supreme Court endorsed. It's my opinion that programmer convenience is strictly wider than interoperability. The only reason why SCOTUS needed to rule this way is: 1. Google did not copy Java APIs strictly for the purpose of interoperability (they specifically did not want interoperability with other Java environments). 2. Ninth Circuit court precedent does not apply in the Federal Circuit, which is the only reason why Oracle even had a leg to stand on. Had Oracle not had a patent claim in this lawsuit, it would have wound up in the Ninth Circuit, we would have gotten another respectable decision limiting software copyright from that court, and the only thing SCOTUS would have had to have done would have been to deny cert to Oracle after they lost. It's entirely due to the Federal Circuit not respecting basic concepts of how software works and ruling on something that shouldn't have been in their jurisdiction that we got here.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
Can any of those companies copying APIs in the past be sued now due to this precedent?

by btilly 6y ago

curt15 6y ago

>The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are. Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. As it does not have original jurisdiction in copyright disputes (only patent cases), it doesn't supercede any copyrightability rulings in other circuits, for instance the 1st circuit's holding in Lotus v Borland that the Lotus macros were not copyrightable as a "method of operation". And today's opinion cites Lotus v Borland several times even though the original 1996 Supreme Court case was deadlocked at 4-4.

wtallis 6y ago
> Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. I think it's even narrower than that: the Federal Circuit's ruling on non-patent aspects of the case isn't binding precedent outside of Oracle v. Google. District courts in the Ninth Circuit and the appeals court are free to ignore the Federal Circuit ruling in future cases and look to only rulings from the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court as binding precedent.
btilly 6y ago
Federal Circuit's ruling would only be precedent in the 9th circuit. No, not only 9th circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is binding nationwide. And if the case includes claims about patents and/or trademarks, even if those specific claims are thrown out, then the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit becomes the court that the case is appealed to. Which is how this particular case wound up there in the first place.
- wtallis 6y ago
  When ruling on aspects of a case that fall outside of their subject matter jurisdiction (eg. copyright rather than patents), the Federal Circuit is supposed to follow the local circuit's precedent, ie. rule how they think the Ninth Circuit would have ruled on those issues. And my understanding is that the Federal Circuit's rulings on eg. the copyright aspects of a case like this do not overturn Ninth Circuit copyright precedent and do not establish new copyright precedent anywhere, not even the Federal Circuit (since in future cases they will again be required to apply the relevant local circuit's copyright precedents as they exist at that time). The Federal Circuit's copyright decision is binding on the parties to the case at hand, but the precedent for future cases is non-binding at best. This was one of the arguments that the FSF and SFLC put forth in their amicus brief recommending that the Supreme Court not take up Google's appeal of the API copyright question: > The court below predicted, on the basis of no compelling evidence, that the Ninth Circuit would depart from settled existing law in a novel direction which, as amici supporting the petition have said at length, would be destructive alike of commercial certainty and freedom to implement, thus inhibiting the progress of science and the useful arts. Neither the Ninth Circuit nor any other regional Court of Appeals is likely to defer to this improbable supposition, so the error is largely self-limiting. Such erroneous predictions of other courts’ holdings are not a suitable employment of this Court’s scarce resources in review by certiorari.

halfmatthalfcat 6y ago

I wonder how this would effect things like Preact too, which for operability sake, uses the exact same API as React.

anamexis 6y ago
In that specific example, I don't think it would really affect them, since both React and Preact are MIT licensed.
- Natanael_L 6y ago
  One of the issues here is that it's not even clear under which license the API should be covered. Does the existing software license also cover the API, or must it be explicitly defined? What happens when an API is co-created by different software developers which each creates their own software under different licenses, through communications which themselves aren't explicitly licensed (like over email lists), and then summarize what they agree on in text instead of code (like the RFC process)? At no point have either one of them explicitly given permission to use their respective contributions under another license. Even if they agree that the RFC text is public domain, that technically do not extend to implementations of the API which it describes (as those are different works!). And there exists no official reference code with legal approval from all contributors, whose license could be adopted by other developers. It would be such a mess...
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > both React and Preact are MIT licensed. Huh, I had no idea the React license wasn't still "you're free to use React unless you ever assert a patent against Facebook".
  - elyobo 6y ago
    Concern about the licensing was eventually sufficient that they resolved it a few years back.
0df8dkdf 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are No, it doesn’t. Because the Court expressly declined to examine the question, the CAFC decision is binding only where it would have been without the Supreme Court decision, i.e., those courts bound by the CAFC’s interpration of how Ninth Circuit law applies. As it turns out, that is exactly zero courts. The reason the Supreme Court often likes to find the narrowest grounds possible for a decision is to avoid making more binding case law than is called for; giving the lower court rulings on all questions not addressed (including those the Supreme Court explicitly avoids) the same binding effect as the actual Supreme Court holding would defeat the purpose, and it is very much not how things work.

DannyBee 6y ago
It was zero courts before, too, no? CAFC does not have natural jurisdiction over copyright and thus always applies circuit law. Here, this was also a 3-judge panel of the federal circuit, and en banc review was denied. Those decisions are already not binding on future 3-judge panels IIRC (it's been a while, honestly), and definitely not binding on the circuits
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > It was zero courts before, too, no? Right, and I think this played an important role in why the Supreme Court ducked API copyrightability; they’d rather not do so absent a binding lower circuit decision, or especially a conflict between circuits, preferring to let the issue percolate (and also provide Congress more time to intervene) of there is another basis dor resolving particular cases with less sweeping impact.

WalterBright 6y ago

Lotus' failure was more because they failed to port to Windows, betting instead on OS/2. Lotus was at a crossroads. DOS was obsolete, was the future OS/2 or Windows? They chose OS/2. Lotus was a big, cash rich company at the time. Their fatal error was not realizing they should have ported 1-2-3 to both OS/2 and Windows. Then they would have been secure regardless of which prevailed.

hnick 6y ago
Lotus 1-2-3 was on Windows so I think I am missing some context here around version differences?
- __d 6y ago
  Timing, IIRC. Lotus was late to Windows, opening the door for Excel.
  - hnick 6y ago
    Yeah it seems to be 1989 v 1991 based on the wiki but it also sounds like there might be some version differences. 2 years was a long time back then.
    - jolux 6y ago
      It's still a long time! You try being two years later to a major market than Microsoft and still beating them. How often has that happened?
      - Gaelan 6y ago
        Windows Mobile/iOS? Arguably Office and Google Docs.
        jolux 6y ago
        Google Docs was released 20 years after Office, after Office had already killed all the rest of its competition in the early 90s. iOS is a good example though. Windows Mobile had not yet come to dominate the market.

WalterBright 6y ago

Netscape went out of business because their browser crashed far more frequently than Explorer. I've heard all the sob stories, but I was sick of the constant crashing of Netscape, and so tried Explorer. Explorer crashed too, but not nearly as often.

mceachen 6y ago
FWIW, Netscape got bought out by AOL, but not before it spun off Mozilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape It may be hard to believe, but the first iteration of Internet Explorer on Macintosh (back on System 8) was __solid__. IE, at least on PowerMacs, was way faster and more reliable than either NCSA Mosaic or Navigator.
- kibwen 6y ago
  Hell, AOL still runs Netscape as a discount ISP, same logo since 1999 and everything: https://isp.netscape.com https://isp.netscape.com
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    God that's a beautiful website. Loads fast. Not too many graphics. Nothing moves unless I tell it to.
- collinmanderson 6y ago
  > Netscape got bought out by AOL That makes it sound like Netscape had no say in the matter. Netscape sold itself to AOL.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    "Bought out" is a common enough way to describe any company sale. "Sold itself" introduces way more unnecessary sub-textual baggage just by being a more unusual construction.
tinus_hn 6y ago

scomp 6y ago

What about Microsoft J# or Microsoft J++? A directly relatable example.

collinmanderson 6y ago

DOS also copied APIs from CP/M (though that was before Microsoft bought it I assume)

ConceptJunkie 6y ago

To be fair, Netscape lost because their product, at the time, was inferior. Netscape blew IE out of the water at first, but IE kept getting better. Netscape 3 was excellent, but when IE 4 came out, it was just better. Then came Netscape 4. 'Nuff said. Lotus couldn't make the transition to Windows, and so lost to Excel (and perhaps Quattro Pro... it's been a long time and I don't remember details). This had nothing to do with copying APIs. Of course, it probably had everything to do with Microsoft's anti-competitive advantage by having access to Windows internals and undocumented features, but that's another matter.

kmeisthax 6y ago

I should point out that in the Ninth Circuit, there's already plenty of strong, citeable precedent in favor of fair use for the purpose of interoperability; separate from the purpose of programmer convenience that the Supreme Court endorsed. It's my opinion that programmer convenience is strictly wider than interoperability. The only reason why SCOTUS needed to rule this way is: 1. Google did not copy Java APIs strictly for the purpose of interoperability (they specifically did not want interoperability with other Java environments). 2. Ninth Circuit court precedent does not apply in the Federal Circuit, which is the only reason why Oracle even had a leg to stand on. Had Oracle not had a patent claim in this lawsuit, it would have wound up in the Ninth Circuit, we would have gotten another respectable decision limiting software copyright from that court, and the only thing SCOTUS would have had to have done would have been to deny cert to Oracle after they lost. It's entirely due to the Federal Circuit not respecting basic concepts of how software works and ruling on something that shouldn't have been in their jurisdiction that we got here.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

Can any of those companies copying APIs in the past be sued now due to this precedent?