Oracle Vs. Google and the Right To Use APIs 155
jfruh writes "Even as an EU court rules that APIs can't be copyrighted, tech observers are waiting for the Oracle v. Google trial jury to rule on the same question under U.S. law. Blogger Brian Proffitt spoke with Groklaw's Pamela Jones on the issue, and her take is that a victory for Oracle would be bad news for developers. Essentially, Oracle is claiming that, while an individual API might not be copyrightable, the collection of APIs needed to use a language is. Such a decision would, among other things, make Java's open source nature essentially meaningless, and would have lots of implications for any programming language you can name."
Re:Instruction sets can be licensable (Score:2, Informative)
x86 instruction set is licensed to AMD as part of a patent-licensing agreement -- because parts of the instruction set itself are patented. E.g.,:
Intel believes that Global Foundries is not a subsidiary under terms of the agreement and is therefore not licensed under the 2001 patent cross-license agreement. Intel also said the structure of the deal between AMD and ATIC breaches a confidential portion of that agreement. Intel has asked AMD to make the relevant portion of the agreement public, but so far AMD has declined to do so.
Copyright != patent protection. Oracle has never claimed that Google violated its patents (probably because it doesn't hold patents protecting the Java API). It's worth noting that patenting the API would clearly make it patent-encumbered and thus, potentially susceptible to exactly the kind of Shenanigans that Oracle is trying to pull. Of course, if it was patent-encumbered, then the industry would [probably] know about it, and would steer clear, as appropriate. Basically, Oracle is trying to have its cake ("open") and eat it too ("license").
If Oracle wins... (Score:3, Informative)
... I move to the EU.
At least there is still one region in the world where the hairless monkeys haven't gone completely insane.
Judge Alsup is on it... (Score:5, Informative)
He has asked the parties to brief him in light of the EU decision [groklaw.net].
Re:Instruction sets can be licensable (Score:4, Informative)
As someone who worked in x86 Architecture, I'm pretty sure (though I'm not a lawyer, so get their opinion definitively first) that the issue here is not the instruction set Per Se, but various physical implementation details that would occur building real circuits to produce a processor chip.
So, for example, that's why various software-based x86 emulator/simulator writers have not been sued.
Matters of fact vs. matters of law (Score:3, Informative)
This idea seems rather broken. Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact and courts are supposed to decide matters of law. Whether an API is copyrightable is purely a matter of law, not fact. What the hell's going on here? This decision is the judge's responsibility.
Patent suit still pending (Score:5, Informative)
Oracle has never claimed that Google violated its patents (probably because it doesn't hold patents protecting the Java API).
The case was in fact about patents before it became clear that Google was very likely to prevail on Oracle's patent infringement allegations. At that point, Oracle decided to add a copyright infringement claim. The suit over U.S. Patents 5966702, 6910205, and RE38104 is still pending and will be resolved after the copyright suit concludes.
Jury, pretend that the API is copyrightable. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Can search results be copyrighted? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Instruction sets can be licensable (Score:5, Informative)
Oracle has never claimed that Google violated its patents (probably because it doesn't hold patents protecting the Java API).
Yes they did, in fact that was the initial basis for this court action [slashdot.org]. The copyright portion is being resolved first then it moves on to the patent portion of the lawsuit.
It's worth noting that patenting the API would clearly make it patent-encumbered and thus, potentially susceptible to exactly the kind of Shenanigans that Oracle is trying to pull.
Java is quite heavily patent-encumbered.
Of course, if it was patent-encumbered, then the industry would [probably] know about it, and would steer clear, as appropriate.
Well no, that would be silly, because it is patent-encumbered but the GPL status of Java means that GPL implementations - like OpenJDK - get an implicit patent license as well as all downstream projects.
Basically, Oracle is trying to have its cake ("open") and eat it too ("license").
Just because something is open doesn't mean it can't be patent-encumbered, if you understand the patent-specific elements of the GPL this should be quite clear.