291–300 of 965 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It wasn’t about whether APIs are under copyright (they are), but whether this particular case constitutes fair use. I think the effect of this decision was way overblown.
If this wasn't fair use, nothing of any substantial value could be considered fair use.
For better or worse, the same arguments ( "API is copyrightable" ) is what was used in the past to prevent 98's Microsoft from doing embrace-extend-extinguish to Java with their "JavaVM with P/Invoke'd Win32 API". The idea in that case was that when you try to implement something identical to the Java language and standard library, it doesn't matter if you call it Java or "Visual J++"; you are still implementing Java…
This is one of the most important legal decisions in the history of software. The US Supreme Court has basically just saved the whole software industry (and FOSS projects) from being wrecked by patent trolls.
s/patent trolls/copyright trolls/ This case involved copyright, not patents. Copyrights are separate from patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why people are acting like this is some victory of open source I don't know that anybody is saying that Google did anything specifically Good or Just or Noble or anything. The celebratory aspect is more based on all the Bad Things that would have happened in the future if this decision had come down in favor of Oracle.
What bad things would have happened? This ruling specifically says that it was fair use, not that APIs are copyrightable - which seems to be the buggy man. As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws.
Given the countless and fundamental APIs that are typically used in any program, do you not think that is a Bad Thing?
Given that most programmers have assumed that to not be the case, it would be very bad for existing code at the very least.
For better or worse, the same arguments ( "API is copyrightable" ) is what was used in the past to prevent 98's Microsoft from doing embrace-extend-extinguish to Java with their "JavaVM with P/Invoke'd Win32 API". The idea in that case was that when you try to implement something identical to the Java language and standard library, it doesn't matter if you call it Java or "Visual J++"; you are still implementing Java…
I wonder if Microsoft's actions could have been ruled at the time as violating antitrust laws instead, if the copyright interpretation had fallen flat? Perhaps upcoming antitrust investigations into Google will look at their re-implementation of Java interfaces in the same light?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thomas's analysis pretty much starts from the conclusion that Google made billions off of Android, so therefore how could anything it be copied be fair use? He cloaks this analysis somewhat by arguing that the distinction between declaring and implementing code must be meaningless because Congress didn't lay it out explicitly in law, but for the person who actually broached the question of what other factors might in…
The argument from the text could go the other way: Congress didn't mention declarative code in the copyright act, so it's not included.
I'm so relieved. This could have forced such dramatic changes in how we develop software. And any other decision would have been a crippling blow to FLOS software. Now if we only could get the SC to invalidate software patents in general.
This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing, so I'm not sure how this could be anything but a sad day for sustainable open source development. If you're big enough and have enough lawyers, there's no reason to license software you want to build on.
While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use: > To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on…
Well, if you can an API for any primary purpose that not making software compatible with the one you are copying, then it's not really an API. It's perfectly fine if you can't frame it and sell around as a painting.
> "Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of declaring code from the API, which amounts to virtually all the declaring code needed to call up hundreds of different tasks. Those 11,500 lines, however, are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.86 million total lines. In considering “the amount and substantiality of the portion used” in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed as…
I'm glad about this outcome, because I agree the other outcome would have had a devastating effect on software development. I also appreciate this fair use argument, especially when you point out the code in question was 0.4% of the entire API. Still, I'll always struggle with the idea that "the amount and substantiality of the portion used" when copying an interface is comparable to copying an implementation. The in…
Ironically the most protected APIs may be the ones nobody implements.