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."
Instruction sets can be licensable (Score:2, Insightful)
Intel licensed the x86 instruction set to AMD.
If an instruction set is licensable, then an API can be too...although it's unclear from what I've read if the licensing covered the instruction set itself or the right to manufacture something compatible with that instruction set. Either way, that should cover the API.
hope we luck out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can search results be copyrighted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google not allowing bots to access their site is in no way comparable to Oracle's claims. It's absurd on several levels.
Also, you must be one hell of a typist. You posted your reply one minute after the story was posted.
Re:Can search results be copyrighted? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a certain amount of irony here, considering your username. An API is an interface to use something. Search results are the product of its use. There is a before-and-after, or cause-and-effect, type relationship between the two. Claiming that an API is not copyrightable has nothing to do with whether a custom, specific product produced by an API is copyrightable. It's non sequitur. Slashdot gives me an interface to type in this comment, but that does not mean that Slashdot owns what I type. One is an API to use it, and the other is the product of the API.
Your argument falls flat because it was not well constructed. Assuming it was, your second claim also falls short. Google does is not required to allow bots to use their services. Complaining that bots are being blocked doesn't hold weight. Claiming that it's a double standard because Google can hit your servers is irrelevant. Server owners have the ability to detect bots and prevent them from scanning their sites too. Google actually uses a specific user agent and has reverse DNS that resolves to google.com so that you know for sure that it's a Google bot scanning your site. Personally, I don't think anyone would want to prevent Google from scanning their web sites, and companies have failed because Google elects to stop scanning (delisting them). But if you wanted to, you certainly could. Google wouldn't complain.
Although your arguments are poorly constructed and contain multiple logical fallacies, your hostility against the delisting is interesting. Were you personally affected? Why would anyone really want to use a different search engine if that engine is simply going to show Google results? Where's the value add? Wouldn't it make more sense to nerdrage against Google's privacy policies, wardriving, de facto age discrimination, or something like that? Why pick bot filtering?
Re:Can search results be copyrighted? (Score:4, Insightful)
robots.txt grumpy, if you don't want to join the link economy.
Google, apple, or any company, organization, etc.. If API's are implicitely copyrighted by definition, all open standards are suspect, all transparency, who the hell knows what happens with the concept of fair use.
The other thought was that Google's web page has never has been an API. Its an end user access mechanism to their service (which hosts a collection of useful information). If you want to use their service, you abide by their TOS which specifically forbits scraping. I've never signed an NDA for using a programming language, but it bet if I did, I'd be just as liable for breaking the terms of use as any Google scraper would be for abusing Google's service.
Re:Can search results be copyrighted? (Score:3, Insightful)
The parent is NOT an insightful post. A troll, maybe.
What Oracle is trying to claim is a new flavor of copyright on previous areas that have been declared by judges as not copyrightable. The key is, not copyrightable. Oracle is making the big reach here.
Stop trying to conflate a completely different issue here because you don't like Google.
Sun also seemed to use similar tricks in the past, IIRC, against Tomcat, JBoss, and at least one open source implementation of Java on Linux that Sun did not want to be run against their compatibility test suite, etc. In time, good sense prevailed, in that Tomcat became the blessed reference implementation for a Java web app server, the OS Java clone was allowed to run against Sun's tests after much pressuring by various groups (and Sun actually put some effort into Linux-based versions of Java ecosystem, etc). But at least they didn't have the temerity to outright claim "copyright infringement" back then. It was as ludicrous then as it is now.
Far beyond programing languages (Score:4, Insightful)
If API's can be restricted like this, it would go far beyond simple languages. Think about the concept of what an API actually is..
Even something as apparently benign as replacement parts for your washer could be restricted and eliminate cheaper 3rd party parts. Even if its not electronic in nature, just claim that nothing can be compatible enough to hook up to your 'widget connector version b'.
Re:Can search results be copyrighted? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, all this bandwidth waste was triggered by my own stupidity. I asked Google to download all the images to create the thumbnails in Google Spreadsheet. Talking about shooting myself in the foot. I launched the Google crawler myself.
You're using Google's service, so you have to play by their rules. They have no obligation to give you their data in the exact way you want.
Again, it's incredible stupid to compare this to Oracle's actions -- there's no basis whatsoever for you to make this connection. You seem to be arguing that because Google won't let you get your way they shouldn't be able to defend themselves when sued. That, or something equally childish and inane.
Re:Can search results be copyrighted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hope we luck out (Score:5, Insightful)
...and now we have bus drivers and secretaries deciding what applies to us and our trade in the span of mere weeks...
If you'd been following the case you'd know that this judge has been working very hard, for months, to understand the issues and make sure the jury is presented with well-formed questions and good background. How good a job he has been able to do, I don't know because that would require wading through hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pages :-)
Re:Can search results be copyrighted? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about?
I see no evidence that Google is asserting copyright over search results. Go ahead do a search and look for a copyright symbol...there is none.
https://www.google.com/search?q=linux [google.com]
As a comparison do a Bing search and Microsoft does assert its copyright at the bottom of every page.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=linux [bing.com]
Copyright has nothing to do with terms of service. Google is under no obligation to let you or anyone else use their service in a way they don't want. That's completely different than Oracle asking the government to fine Google for supposedly violating their copyright on something that is possibly not copyrightable like an API. Oracle is not alleging that Google violated a terms of service. They are alleging that Google needed a license in order to copy copyrighted material.
Google created their service and for the most part they can decide how the service is used. If someone is using their service in a way that hurts Google they are within their legal or moral rights to not provide that service in a way that hurts them. Just like as a website operator I can decide how my web server is used. I can choose to ban Google's IPs if I don't want them to access my service. I can use a robots.txt file to instruct their HTTP agent to ignore certain pages. If my website's content is copied in a way that is not covered by fair use I can ask the government to fine those who are violating my copyright but that is separate from determining what IPs may use my web server as a service. Just like Google could choose to ask the government to fine someone who violated their copyright in a way that is not covered by fair use.
Can you cite any references where Google has alleged that someone violated their copyright on a search result that you believe is covered by fair use?
Re:hope we luck out (Score:5, Insightful)
The expert knowledge in the case is supposed to come from the expert witnesses.
You don't really want the jurors to be too deep in the field; in particular, you don't want the jurors to be privately disagreeing with the explanations of the expert witness.
Why? Because the jurors are not examined. An "expert juror" could decide the case based on a prejudice that is never heard in court, and neither of the sides get the opportunity to challenge. A jury with few preconceptions is good for transparency.
Besides, how likely is it that such a jury would be unbiased? Would they rule against Google despite the implications for IT if Oracle wins?
Or we can laugh when they win and are sued ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And Dennis Ritchie's estate would like to talk to them about all the royalties they need to cough up for using the c standard library.
And Bjarne Stroustrup and Bell Labs want to talk to them about royalties for using classes, and the whole dot syntax, and the whole of Java being just a poor man's c++.
There is absolutely no way that Oracle is going to win this one - even they know that the immediate consequences would be disasterous for them, as the whole world drops Java for anything else.
Re:Or we can laugh when they win and are sued ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed the entire point - you do not need a license to implement a java runtime - the license is for the use of the Java name, the coffe-cup logo, certification that your implementation meets the requirements of the TCK, etc.
In addition, Java was fragmentted by SUN. Java ME (mobile edition) is an absolute mess, with major incompatibilities, so the entire "OMG Android fragments the java platform" argument is a lie. It's even more of a lie because Android is not Java.
Sun's former CEO has testified that there's no problem with people making unlicensed implementations - the java language is open and free for anyone to use. Oracle has stipulated in court that this is true. Same as the c language is open and free for anyone to use. Same as if you're not happy with the c++ STL, you're free to implement your own version (and there are multiple implementations of the STL). BASIC. Pascal. C#. While you can copyright an implementation, you cannot copyright the idea behind the implementation, any more than you can copyright the rules of a game.
As for Android being commercial - so what? Anyone is free to implement a Java-to-whatever translator, just as Google bought a Java-to-dalvik translator called Android. Just like you're free to implement a BASIC-to-c translator, or a Java-to-c translator. The language is free for anyone to use. Even Oracle has agreed - in court - that this is the case.
Oracle thought they'd get a big payday from patents, but most of those have been struck down by the USPTO reviews, so now they're down to whining about stupidity like 9 lines in a sort routine that aren't even theirs - they were imported from the timsort routine in python [wikipedia.org].