6 ms·

Could someone more knowledgeable on the relevant legal issues add some comment? This seems remarkably bad for the industry in general.

spiralpolitik 11y ago
We need to wait for the lower court to decide if Google's use fell under "fair use". If it doesn't then it is bad news.
- justinlardinois 11y ago
  Specifically the district court. The case made it to a federal appeals court, which ruled that APIs are copyrightable (the district court had ruled they were not), and then remanded* the case back to the district court to decide if Google's fair use defense was valid. Google appealed the federal court decision to the Supreme Court, which decided to not hear the case. *Appeals courts in the United States do not rule on the facts of a particular case; they only decide if the lower courts properly applied the law. This doctrine is either by law or tradition, depending on the particular appeals court. When an appeals court overturns a legal decision made by a lower court, it typically remands the case back to the lower court to clarify any facts necessary to resolve the case.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Google appealed the federal court decision to the Supreme Court The appeals court decision -- both the district court and the appeals court are federal courts. > Appeals courts in the United States do not rule on the facts of a particular case That's not always true; matters of fact can be appealed, and there are different standards of review on appeal for different kinds of fact question, however, appeals courts generally prefer not to reach fact questions, particularly if the appeal was over a question of law and not specifically on the fact question, and appeals courts generally do not answer questions -- particularly fact or mixed fact/law questions -- that have not been addressed by the court below, as is often the case where the appeals court reverses a finding of law of the lower court, which then makes relevant a fact question that the lower court did not answer because it would have been irrelevant under the lower court's view of the law.

spiralpolitik 11y ago

We need to wait for the lower court to decide if Google's use fell under "fair use". If it doesn't then it is bad news.

justinlardinois 11y ago
Specifically the district court. The case made it to a federal appeals court, which ruled that APIs are copyrightable (the district court had ruled they were not), and then remanded* the case back to the district court to decide if Google's fair use defense was valid. Google appealed the federal court decision to the Supreme Court, which decided to not hear the case. *Appeals courts in the United States do not rule on the facts of a particular case; they only decide if the lower courts properly applied the law. This doctrine is either by law or tradition, depending on the particular appeals court. When an appeals court overturns a legal decision made by a lower court, it typically remands the case back to the lower court to clarify any facts necessary to resolve the case.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Google appealed the federal court decision to the Supreme Court The appeals court decision -- both the district court and the appeals court are federal courts. > Appeals courts in the United States do not rule on the facts of a particular case That's not always true; matters of fact can be appealed, and there are different standards of review on appeal for different kinds of fact question, however, appeals courts generally prefer not to reach fact questions, particularly if the appeal was over a question of law and not specifically on the fact question, and appeals courts generally do not answer questions -- particularly fact or mixed fact/law questions -- that have not been addressed by the court below, as is often the case where the appeals court reverses a finding of law of the lower court, which then makes relevant a fact question that the lower court did not answer because it would have been irrelevant under the lower court's view of the law.