Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

Post by chris_wot » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:45 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #300

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can recommend focusing on Justice Thomas' dissent, which contains a section related to this topic. I believe Justice Thomas agrees with your assessment, and he raises concern that the SCOTUS has essentially made APIs practically uncopyrightable (in that they will 100% of the time find that it's fair-use to use them). I actually disagree with him, but only in one sub-category: I think a SCOTUS ruling would be harder…

Post by Sephr » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

Post by chris_wot » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

mayank wrote: post #459

teruakohatu wrote: post #7

> "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…

> This judgment could have had devastating consequences and turned software development into a copyright nightmare. It’d sure have made the practice of taking someone else’s API and re-implementing the innards a lot more interesting: https://docs.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3co...

Post by AshamedCaptain » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:49 PM UTC

o_nate wrote: post #354

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #126

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'm not sure the "API is copyrightable" argument was relevant in the Microsoft-Sun case. Keep in mind that case was settled privately. Since it was never decided in court, it's hard to say what the most relevant claims were, but I don't see Sun making much of the copyright claim. They had a licensing claim because they claimed Microsoft had licensed the Java trademark but was not implementing it fully according to th…

Post by amelius » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 4:49 PM UTC

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #480

teruakohatu wrote: post #7

> "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 wouldn't celebrate a victory yet. As is often the case, the court's choice of tests simply will serve as a blueprint for others on how to avoid themselves being caught in the same kind of result. Based on this court decision, it's apparently fair use to lift someone else's API and use it to jumpstart programmer familiarity with your product, if the author of the API previously tried to achieve success in that narro…