3 ms·

Supreme Court Denies Google Appeal on Oracle Suit – APIs Now Copyrightable?

18 points by ScottWRobinson 11y ago

tracker1 11y ago
You have got to be fucking kidding me. I would really love to see an industry wide exodus and migration plan away from Oracle if you're using them now, as well as a very wide boycott.
AceJohnny2 11y ago
So it's down to deciding whether copying an API is "fair use", eh?
- Oletros 11y ago
  The problem is that it will be a case by case basis.
tzs 11y ago
It's not clear that this means APIs are now copyrightable. CAFC is not normally in the appeals path for copyright lawsuits, so it is not clear if district courts will take CAFC's decision as precedent. They should follow the Court of Appeals for their numbered circuit. Oracle vs. Google only went to CAFC because it was also a patent case, and that dragged the copyright side of the case with it. It certainly makes things more complicated, though. I suppose that is an inherent problem when you set up a system where there are two independent courts that are in the appeals path of the same trial courts, and neither of these appeals courts is in the appeals path of the other. This could be fixed by changing it so that on a mixed case like this, the copyright aspects of the appeal go on to the Court of Appeal for the numbered circuit, and the patent aspects of the appeal go on to the CAFC. Normally when a court hears something that it normally would not because that is part of a larger case, this is done to avoid duplication of effort. For instance, if I sue you over a California contract and a copyright which all arose out of a failed business deal, the case will be heard in Federal district court. The Federal court will hear the California contract case, and apply California contract law. This makes sense because the contract case and the copyright case all arose out of the same business deal. The two cases are going to have largely the same witnesses, and the same issues of fact to be decided. It would be wasteful to conduct two different trials, in two different courts, to adjudicate this. But appeals courts do not have witnesses, and are not trying to determine facts. All of that they get from the record from the trial court. Appeals courts are dealing with matters of law, not fact. I don't see how it would be much of a burden to argue the copyright matters of law in one court and the patent matters of law in another court.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. I would really love to see an industry wide exodus and migration plan away from Oracle if you're using them now, as well as a very wide boycott.

AceJohnny2 11y ago

So it's down to deciding whether copying an API is "fair use", eh?

Oletros 11y ago
The problem is that it will be a case by case basis.

tzs 11y ago

It's not clear that this means APIs are now copyrightable. CAFC is not normally in the appeals path for copyright lawsuits, so it is not clear if district courts will take CAFC's decision as precedent. They should follow the Court of Appeals for their numbered circuit. Oracle vs. Google only went to CAFC because it was also a patent case, and that dragged the copyright side of the case with it. It certainly makes things more complicated, though. I suppose that is an inherent problem when you set up a system where there are two independent courts that are in the appeals path of the same trial courts, and neither of these appeals courts is in the appeals path of the other. This could be fixed by changing it so that on a mixed case like this, the copyright aspects of the appeal go on to the Court of Appeal for the numbered circuit, and the patent aspects of the appeal go on to the CAFC. Normally when a court hears something that it normally would not because that is part of a larger case, this is done to avoid duplication of effort. For instance, if I sue you over a California contract and a copyright which all arose out of a failed business deal, the case will be heard in Federal district court. The Federal court will hear the California contract case, and apply California contract law. This makes sense because the contract case and the copyright case all arose out of the same business deal. The two cases are going to have largely the same witnesses, and the same issues of fact to be decided. It would be wasteful to conduct two different trials, in two different courts, to adjudicate this. But appeals courts do not have witnesses, and are not trying to determine facts. All of that they get from the record from the trial court. Appeals courts are dealing with matters of law, not fact. I don't see how it would be much of a burden to argue the copyright matters of law in one court and the patent matters of law in another court.