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

Post by gwright » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 8:55 PM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #629

TimTheTinker wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need fundamental reform of IP protections for software anyway. That really is the root issue here. So many problems we're seeing (Pai's clownshow in the FCC, SCOTUS legislating from the bench, federal agencies trampling citizens' rights, etc.) stem from the legislative branch abdicating their authority to third parties -- the librarian of Congress, the FCC, SCOTUS, and even (by legal reference) professional orga…

> Congress gave him that power - which I would argue was an abdication of authority vested in them. Legislators assigning regulatory power to bureaucratic agencies is one of the cornerstones of modern democracies - it wouldn't work otherwise. Many of our legislators are barely qualified to send their own emails, let alone decide what is a telecom utility or how much ppb in drinking water is safe for a toxic chemical.…

Post by mbesto » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #233

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'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…

Post by ghayes » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #549

lillecarl wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not a market substitute for Java SE." Does this mean that companies copying the S3 API as a substitute for S3 are still untested territory?

Strictly speaking, yes - this decision, as many other SCOTUS decisions, is tailored to specific case and leaves the other situations to be argued on their own merits. But having definite precedent in the situation where API has been recognized as non-copyrightable both sends signal to the lower courts about where SCOTUS leans, and to the potential plaintiffs about their chances to ultimately prevail. It is not a defi…

Post by grumple » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:04 PM UTC

jxf wrote: post #70

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…

Post by shemnon42 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #739

bobbyi_settv wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use: Doesn't deciding that it's fair use specifically mean that they think it is copyrightable? The fair use doctrine specifically refers to the use of copyrighted material.

No. "Assume it's copyrightable. It's still fair use." That means you don't have to answer "Is it copyrightable?" The Supreme Court generally prefers to not answer questions that they don't have to answer.

    if (!isFairUse(workUnderInvestigation) && copyrightable(originalWork)) {
      bigCopyrightPayout();
    }