i found the decision : http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1021.Opinion.5-7-2014.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/op

i found the decision : http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1021.Opinion.5-7-2014.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/... linked from an eff.org article : https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/dangerous-ruling-oracle-v-google-federal-circuit-reverses-sensible-lower-court https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/dangerous-ruling-oracl... i read the slides, then the decision, and then i got confused.. so i read alsup's ruling: https://www.scribd.com/doc/95480891/Oracle-v-Google-API-Order https://www.scribd.com/doc/95480891/Oracle-v-Google-API-Orde... and now i'm really confused alsup's ruling :: > This order does not hold that Java API packages are free for all to use without license.It does not hold that the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be stolen. Rather, it holds on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act. Therefore, Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization is DISMISSED which seems to contradict this from the eff.org article: >In May 2012, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California ruled that APIs are not subject to copyright it seems instead that alsup is saying that current understandings of code copyright stand but goog's use fell under fair use federal circuit's decision :: >Ultimately, we conclude that this is not a case in which the record contains sufficient factual findings upon which we could base a de novo assessment of Google’s affirmative defense of fair use. which reinforces that this is moreso an issue of fair use : > Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work >> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html fair use is only applicable on copyrighted material, if something were uncopyrightable then examining it's derivatives for fair use would be unnecessary, but here alsup is using fair use to excuse goog's use of the java api, implying the api is subject to copyright so regardless of what an api is or whomever thinks whatever thae think an api is is moot to this legal hearing to argue this decision in favor of your opinion you'd have to focus on the referenced snippets and analyse them for fair use, because that is what alsup ruled it if the code oversteps fair use then you have to agree with the decision at this point, in all honesty, this whole thing seems so beyond me.. just makes me wonder why goog wrote android in java why would anyone write anything in java? is that oracle's goal?