> To re-implement Java, Google needed to copy the names and argument types of functions like java.lang.Math.max.
If there are "copying" examples like this in the case, I am surprised it wasn't thrown out way earlier.
Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
11–20 of 771 posts
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#12This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere. If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters…
APIs being copyrightable doesn't actually harm implementations of APIs that fall under fair use. (Fair use exemptions specifically apply to copyrighted things.) Interoperability is fair use. And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Things like WINE or NES emulators or the like would fall very comfortably into…
Sorry, but this is not an accurate summary of the state of the law. Whether Android's implementation of Java was fair use is one of the questions the Supreme Court is considering. Google was absolutely trying to achieve interoperability with Java, so if Google loses it would make it more difficult for others to claim fair use. Fair use is complicated so others might succeed where Google failed, but a loss for Google would be bad news for interoperability generally.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#13This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere. If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters…
>> If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API?
That has implications for language implementations too. Who would own the standard library for any given language? What about programs that call API functions? Are they derivative works too?
An API is necessarily functional first and foremost. It would cause chaos and some weird dystopian future if Oracle wins.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#14I saw one question from Gorsuch quoted in reports about the arguments that bothered me: "What do we do about the fact that the other competitors, Apple, Microsoft ... have, in fact, been able to come up with phones that work just fine without engaging in this kind of copying?"
macOS and iOS (and indeed Apple itself) would not exist as we know them today, if at all, without very liberal cross pollination of APIs. In a parallel universe where APIs are copyrighted to the extent that Oracle wants, GNU would not exist. Konqueror and Safari could not use Microsoft's XMLHttpRequest(). The list goes on and on.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#15>Oracle, for example, re-implemented Amazon's S3 API so that customers who built software for Amazon's cloud platform could easily switch to Oracle's rival cloud platform. So if Oracle wins here, they will get fu xx ed by Amazon?
Who knows. Does Amazon implement any of Oracle's APIs? This ruling is about to make the software patent mess look like a walk in the park.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#16This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere. If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters…
APIs being copyrightable doesn't actually harm implementations of APIs that fall under fair use. (Fair use exemptions specifically apply to copyrighted things.) Interoperability is fair use. And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Things like WINE or NES emulators or the like would fall very comfortably into…
>Interoperability is fair use.
That seems incompatible with the text of Section 107, which includes the amount copied as a factor for determining fair use. The more compatible your implementation is, the more you have to copy, so the logical end of this reasoning is that Android's implementation of Java would be fair use if it had copied all of the API, not just a subset.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#17> This is a widespread practice in the software industry. Oracle, for example, re-implemented Amazon's S3 API so that customers who built software for Amazon's cloud platform could easily switch to Oracle's rival cloud platform. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
1. That would probably be considered fair use.
2. The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably dwarf most financial prospects from any API reimplementations that might be at risk.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#18Where are the expert witnesses in this case?? Do we really expect judges in their 60s and 70s to understand basics of coding in order to come to the right conclusion?? I put myself in their shoes, if I had never looked at a line of code I couldn't even start to imagine what an API vs real code is. I'd probably think it's some made up concept that Google is using to save money and circumvent the law.
> Where are the expert witnesses in this case??
In the trial court.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#19I saw one question from Gorsuch quoted in reports about the arguments that bothered me: "What do we do about the fact that the other competitors, Apple, Microsoft ... have, in fact, been able to come up with phones that work just fine without engaging in this kind of copying?" macOS and iOS (and indeed Apple itself) would not exist as we know them today, if at all, without very liberal cross pollination of APIs. In a…
I thought Goldstein gave a satisfactory answer here by making the analogy to the difference between English and French.
Re: Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google
#20This decision doesn't change anything as long as software vendors use a permissive license.
The fear mongering about all sorts of cases in which might be affected (API, file formats) area under the assumption that the copyright holder has disallowed use which is the problem.
I suspect many will include provisions to allow it in their licenses otherwise the ecosystem for their products would shrink radically.