Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

Did Sun ever make a public statement that anybody is allowed to independently re-implement (subsets of) the JRE class library APIs? I don't recall such a promise. Probably it's tied to the notorious TCK certification process that always was entirely at Sun's discretion.

Actually many years ago Sun has successfully sued Microsoft over Microsoft's incomplete JRE implementation, but I guess that was more about breach-of-contract and trademarks than it was about copyright.

What Sun has done is release (most of) their own JRE implementation with a GPL(+exception) license, which would of course imply a license to the API copyrights that Oracle is now speciously claiming... but Google is not using this implementation (because, as everyone knows, there are obvious legal risks to using GPL'd code); IIRC the class library implementation that Google uses comes mostly from Apache.

It's important (and sometimes difficult for us technically oriented types) to recognize that the law isn't necessarily (despite what Scalia would have us all believe) a slavish dedication to the precise words, and that the broader context and purpose of the law is taken into account when making judgements.

Just because a particular reading of copyright law might suggest that APIs could be copyrighted, doesn't mean that in the presence of a greater good ("...To promote the progress of science and useful arts..") the court might just decide that allowing the copyright of APIs would be incorrect.

> APIs on the other hand, are mainly for humans to communicate with each other when building systems that interoperate.

I guess maybe that'd be the argument. To me, it seems pretty clear that API's are for "computer systems interoperating with each other". That's what an API is, an interface for one piece of software to interoperate with another. Seems to me and many others anyway. "Interface" kind of means "interoperation", an interface is the where and how of one component interoperating with another. I'm a bit surprised that any programmer would disagree actually, but I've been surprised before.

The scary thing is that non-technical judges will have to understand what an API is and what it's for here.

I do agree that software code does some weird things to copyright and starts to make the whole thing odd, and agree with you about "method of operation" thing -- the trick about code, different from former "creative expression fixed in a physical medium", is that code _does things_, in a way different from previous forms of creative expression fixed in a physical medium. Copyright is a weird edifice to begin with, and code makes it weirder, for sure.

> APIs are no different from any other code.

To me, API's are _not code_ at all, sot that's why they are different from "any other code." An API is a _description of code_, not code itself. Code implementing an API is surely copyrightable, but it seems to me clear that an API -- the description of classes, methods, and signatures -- is not code, it is a description of features of code. Google here lost by making code that _worked the same_ as Sun's, not because they copied Sun's Java source. And that's why it seems clear to me that it ought not, consistent with previous copyright law, to be copyrightable.

But clearly people will disagree, especially non technical people, which is why this is a case. I think most technical people tend to agree with me, but obviously not all.

> I don't, what? Are they basing copyright-eligability on consumers' ability to understand features that interact to form other features? How is the Trademark, that was shown as part of the security check (only on consoles newer than the games), precluded from that desire?

The point is that it's in customer's interests for Sega to be able to e.g. only display the Sega logo for games that use Sega chips. That's a non-functional feature, so to speak, and there are good reasons for it (e.g. some low-quality third party chips could damage the console itself). The court is looking after customers' interests by distinguishing between that and a functional feature.

> Translation is prohibited under copyright, except for fair use.

Nope. Translations are derived works and may not be distributed without the copyright holder's permission, but there's no law against making a translation in-house and using it internally.

> surely there wasn't any commercial gain involved, so it's still somewhat fair use

That's not what fair use means.

Microsoft was granted a right to use the Java trademarks under certain conditions - conditions which it then violated while continuing to use those trademarks, meaning it was violating Sun's Java trademark, not the copyright. Google avoids using the Java trademarks entirely.

Trademark law is primarily to protect customers - people who bought "Microsoft Java" (yes, it was more complicated than handing cash to MS and getting Microsoft Java, but the point stands) thought they were getting Java, and they weren't (the whole point of Java was "write once, run anywhere", but programs written under Microsoft Java often wouldn't run on Sun Java). Whereas there is no such confusion when people buy "Google Dalvik".