3 ms·

I don't think it ruled that just being original was enough to make an API copyrightable. It was more whether at the time the work was created, was there some el

by b1daly 12y ago

I don't think it ruled that just being original was enough to make an API copyrightable. It was more whether at the time the work was created, was there some element of reality (for example an existing standard) that dictated that a particular expression had to be used. It also focussed that this type analysis was to be focussed on the choices available to the author of the original work, not the choices available to the accused plagiarist. This is in keeping with our existing notions of IP. It would preclude someone who wants to make a toy related to Mickey Mouse claiming that the only way to make such a toy would be to use the trademarked and copyrighted material of Disney.

wfjackson 12y ago
Hopefully this isn't precedential especially because some of the things that came out during trial that hurt Google had nothing to do with the copyrightability of API but had to do with intent. For example, this was an internal email by Google's Android boss Andy Rubin in 2005: "If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way" Intent and knowledge matters a lot in court decisions, so the above makes it seem that Google had full knowledge of the risk it was taking and still went along with it kicking the can down the road rather than officially license .NET or Java by paying Microsoft or Sun.
- vyrotek 12y ago
  I reaslly wish they had gone with C#. That whould have been amazing. I wonder if MS would have even tried to start their own mobile platform if Android was already running .Net?
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    I wish they would have used C, which has much better support for being called from other languages, and then let different people write code in C# or Haskell or Brainfuck or whatever they want.
sehugg 12y ago
Google probably based part of its decision on the huge existing body of code and tools developed by the Java community that depended on the existing API and VM, aided and encouraged by Sun (which included clean-room VM implementations). Fair use exists so that fans of Mickey Mouse can put up websites about Mickey Mouse, write reviews of cartoons, etc. Disney benefits from this activity, just as Sun has benefited from all of its pre-2010 goodwill toward Java.
- b1daly 12y ago
  Right, but the problem for Google is that Judge Alsop ruled as a matter of Law that API is not copyrightable. So that mooted the defense for Google's actions under fair use. This seems like a major ruling. Now Google is going to have to go back to trial with a fair use defense as the outcome of that portion of the original trial did not provide enough factual basis for the appellate court to rule.

by b1daly 12y ago

wfjackson 12y ago

Hopefully this isn't precedential especially because some of the things that came out during trial that hurt Google had nothing to do with the copyrightability of API but had to do with intent. For example, this was an internal email by Google's Android boss Andy Rubin in 2005: "If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way" Intent and knowledge matters a lot in court decisions, so the above makes it seem that Google had full knowledge of the risk it was taking and still went along with it kicking the can down the road rather than officially license .NET or Java by paying Microsoft or Sun.

vyrotek 12y ago
I reaslly wish they had gone with C#. That whould have been amazing. I wonder if MS would have even tried to start their own mobile platform if Android was already running .Net?
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  I wish they would have used C, which has much better support for being called from other languages, and then let different people write code in C# or Haskell or Brainfuck or whatever they want.

sehugg 12y ago

Google probably based part of its decision on the huge existing body of code and tools developed by the Java community that depended on the existing API and VM, aided and encouraged by Sun (which included clean-room VM implementations). Fair use exists so that fans of Mickey Mouse can put up websites about Mickey Mouse, write reviews of cartoons, etc. Disney benefits from this activity, just as Sun has benefited from all of its pre-2010 goodwill toward Java.

b1daly 12y ago
Right, but the problem for Google is that Judge Alsop ruled as a matter of Law that API is not copyrightable. So that mooted the defense for Google's actions under fair use. This seems like a major ruling. Now Google is going to have to go back to trial with a fair use defense as the outcome of that portion of the original trial did not provide enough factual basis for the appellate court to rule.