3 ms·

Looks like they lost [0], with Google winning 6-2, but maybe Oracle is trying to appeal it? I'm not familiar with the remanding process so I can't comment on th

by jjice 3y ago

Looks like they lost [0], with Google winning 6-2, but maybe Oracle is trying to appeal it? I'm not familiar with the remanding process so I can't comment on that part of this quote. > In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–2 decision that Google's use of the Java APIs fell within the four factors of fair use, bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. The decision reversed the Federal Circuit ruling and remanded the case for further review. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America%2C_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America%2....

nottorp 3y ago
Oh interesting. The last piece of news I read was probably the decision before that, that ruled in Oracle's favour. Blame Covid. So is it final, or they can still drag it on? From wikipedia: "Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion. Breyer's opinion began with the assumption that the APIs may be copyrightable, and thus proceeded with a review of the four factors that contributed to fair use:" That doesn't look so good.
- vidarh 3y ago
  It's fairly typical that the court wanted to make the narrowest decision possible. By conclusion that *even under the assumption they _may_ copyrightable, Google didn't violate copyright they saved themselves the hassle of deciding on the copyright issue.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    IANAL. So basically the assumption language means there is no rule either that APIs are copyrightable or not, yet... Could have been worse i guess.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Well. There's no Supreme Court ruling on the copyrightability. The Federal Circuit did hold that APIs are copyrightable, and as far as I understand the Supreme Court carefully avoided deciding whether or not they were right about that. So it's not great, as it does leave the Federal Circuit finding that the APIs were copyrightable standing so far, but as you say it could have been worse - it does not have remotely the same weight.
- ender341341 3y ago
  My (non-lawyer) take on that is when they say "began with the assumption that the APIs may be copyrightable, and thus proceeded with a review of the four factors that contributed to fair use" is that they're not saying APIs are copyrightable and basically ignored that question because they ruled that even if they are copyrightable googles use would be fair use and oracle doesn't have a case. it's a fairly common method cases are resolved, you say "assuming the plaintiff claims are all true, do they actually have cause of action for a lawsuit?"

by jjice 3y ago

nottorp 3y ago

Oh interesting. The last piece of news I read was probably the decision before that, that ruled in Oracle's favour. Blame Covid. So is it final, or they can still drag it on? From wikipedia: "Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion. Breyer's opinion began with the assumption that the APIs may be copyrightable, and thus proceeded with a review of the four factors that contributed to fair use:" That doesn't look so good.

vidarh 3y ago
It's fairly typical that the court wanted to make the narrowest decision possible. By conclusion that *even under the assumption they _may_ copyrightable, Google didn't violate copyright they saved themselves the hassle of deciding on the copyright issue.
- nottorp 3y ago
  IANAL. So basically the assumption language means there is no rule either that APIs are copyrightable or not, yet... Could have been worse i guess.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    Well. There's no Supreme Court ruling on the copyrightability. The Federal Circuit did hold that APIs are copyrightable, and as far as I understand the Supreme Court carefully avoided deciding whether or not they were right about that. So it's not great, as it does leave the Federal Circuit finding that the APIs were copyrightable standing so far, but as you say it could have been worse - it does not have remotely the same weight.
ender341341 3y ago
My (non-lawyer) take on that is when they say "began with the assumption that the APIs may be copyrightable, and thus proceeded with a review of the four factors that contributed to fair use" is that they're not saying APIs are copyrightable and basically ignored that question because they ruled that even if they are copyrightable googles use would be fair use and oracle doesn't have a case. it's a fairly common method cases are resolved, you say "assuming the plaintiff claims are all true, do they actually have cause of action for a lawsuit?"