Google’s Supreme Court faceoff with Oracle was a disaster for Google

Post by burtonator » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

Aqueous wrote: post #6

This 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…

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #43

This article really overstates the case by focusing on copyrightability while leaving fair use for a tag at the end. Winning on fair use is not a disaster for Google. Google winning on fair use on procedural grounds, if the Court uses that as an excuse not to even answer the copyrightability question (the narrowest possible grounds for a Google victory), does not, contrary to the article's claim that "a Google win on…

Post by bismuthsalt » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #48

mathraki wrote: post #9

Where 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.

Code is a repeatable (executable) list of instructions that can describe a process. Perform the instructions, execute the process. Processes--and a good example is business processes like SOPs, etc.--have inputs and outputs. An API is a name for that process, plus a description of the required inputs. Can you copyright a name and a description of inputs for a process?

Post by AstralStorm » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

curt15 wrote: post #16

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by tjchear » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #27

mathraki wrote: post #9

Where 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.

To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.

  class Processor {
    void init();
    void process(...);
    void cleanup();
  };