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

Post by rayiner » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

indymike wrote: post #333

rayiner wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it’s copyrightable or not is a legal question, and Schwartz isn’t a lawyer. And the answer has to be the same for everyone, not just Sun. Now, that might be an “implied license” or “estoppel” argument—even if it’s copyrightable, you can’t enforce it now because you led everyone to believe they could use it for free.

What lawyers think matters little. What judges think, well, that is what matters.

Post by FandangoRanger » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

indymike wrote: post #333

rayiner wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it’s copyrightable or not is a legal question, and Schwartz isn’t a lawyer. And the answer has to be the same for everyone, not just Sun. Now, that might be an “implied license” or “estoppel” argument—even if it’s copyrightable, you can’t enforce it now because you led everyone to believe they could use it for free.

What lawyers think matters little. What judges think, well, that is what matters.

Post by bismuthsalt » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 10:08 PM UTC

R0b0t1 wrote: post #160

phkahler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Another interesting take: Machine architectures expose an API, and it may become impossible for anyone but a chip manufacturer to distribute a compiler.

Post by pdonis » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

cloverich wrote: post #320

luckylion wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They produced a better product, and the market rewarded them for that. You could make that same argument about patents in general, couldn't you? If you invent something, say, a new battery, and somebody else copies it, doesn't have your R&D-costs invested and prices it accordingly lower than you, the market will "reward them" by buying from them instead of you, they're getting the same thing after all. We do want s…

> say, a new battery It would be more about copying the batteries terminal structure, such that you could build products compatible with the battery or a battery compatible with the products. It snot about copying the battery, its about supporting interoperability. That's what is at risk here. Sixty seven different kinds of outlets, or arbitrarily expensive ones where the "design" itself is licesned, instead of the c…

Post by pwdisswordfish0 » Thu, Oct 08, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #315

mumblemumble wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that it doesn't work out that way. The Apache license has the patent clause, but it doesn't have a comparable "API copyright" clause. Though perhaps another consequence of an Oracle win is that we end up with an Apache3 license.

They've given a license to use and extend the copy-written software, including its method signatures.