Google Asks Supreme Court To Rule On When Code Can Be Copyrighted (theverge.com) 203
Google is asking the Supreme Court to make the final call in its infamous dispute with Oracle. "Today, the company announced it has filed a petition with the Court, asking the justices to determine the boundaries of copyright law in code," reports The Verge. From the report: The case dates back to 2010, when Oracle first accused Google of improperly using elements of Oracle's Java programming language to build Android. Oracle said that Google's use of Java application programing interfaces was a violation of copyright law. Google has responded that APIs are too fundamental to programming to be copyrighted. The case has led to two jury trials, and several rulings have doled out wins and losses to both companies over the course of eight years. Last year, a favorable Oracle decision set Google up to potentially lose billions of dollars.
Google asked for a Supreme Court hearing on the case in 2014, but the Court rejected the request at the time. The company says new issues are now at play, and is asking the Court to decide whether software interfaces can be copyrighted, and whether using them to build something new constitutes fair use under the law. In its new petition to the Supreme Court, Google says the case is not only important to copyright law, but has "sheer practical importance," as it centers around two touchstones of computing: Google's Android and Oracle's Java. The Court's intervention could alter the future of software, the company argues.
Google asked for a Supreme Court hearing on the case in 2014, but the Court rejected the request at the time. The company says new issues are now at play, and is asking the Court to decide whether software interfaces can be copyrighted, and whether using them to build something new constitutes fair use under the law. In its new petition to the Supreme Court, Google says the case is not only important to copyright law, but has "sheer practical importance," as it centers around two touchstones of computing: Google's Android and Oracle's Java. The Court's intervention could alter the future of software, the company argues.
Fingers Crossed! (Score:3)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
But if Oracle wins too big, they might have to give their whole company over to K&R!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't actually joking, I really do think that is the logical result of what Oracle is asking for, and they're asking for it because they know they won't get it. They hope to get 10 or 15 years of it only.
Nobody they got rights from got the rights to the APIs and stuff from K&R, because nobody knew they needed it! Even just the form of a C struct; nobody thought they needed permission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fingers Crossed! (Score:5, Interesting)
Good joke. As if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are going to vote against corporate interests.
It's Google v Oracle. There's a megacorporation on both sides of the courtroom. The Supreme Court is going to vote against someone's corporate interest, if they grant the writ at all.
Google had better have been eloquent beyond all measure. Their lawyers have been working on this writ of certiorari since before October. If they fail to convince the Supreme Court to grant a hearing, it's all over and Oracle wins and software as an industry basically ends, swallowed by lawyers.
For those playing along at home, if the last ruling in Oracle's favor stands, Novell essentially owns the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel reimplements the UNIX kernel API. If the ruling by the blithering idiots in the Court of Appeals is allowed to stand, that's illegal without a license. Novell's lawyers would have to write a license to allow Linux to continue to exist. All of the standard system libraries, especially things like libc, would become embroiled in legal battles to determine who owes what to whom. Odds are, Microsoft's implementation of libc is too new, and Microsoft would require a license from someone else to keep it. But the parts that are C99 were developed jointly, so it could take centuries of lawyer-time to figure out who owns what.
We're going to hope that Google's lawyers were able to convey all of this to the Supreme Court. They'd better. There were 11 lawyers involved and the writ [google.com] is 343 pages.
Fingers Crossed? No, choose a better case (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For those playing along at home, if the last ruling in Oracle's favor stands, Novell essentially owns the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel reimplements the UNIX kernel API. If the ruling by the blithering idiots in the Court of Appeals is allowed to stand, that's illegal without a license. Novell's lawyers would have to write a license to allow Linux to continue to exist
This is unlikely to be true, because X/Open and POSIX were developed with the intent to be an open standard.
For most software, it's a good idea to not use an API unless you have a license. That should be common sense by now.
Re: (Score:2)
"For most software, it's a good idea to not use an API unless you have a license."
According to whom? Clean room implemented APIs are everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Google tried the interoperability defense, but it failed because their software was not interoperable with Java.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't responding to an assertion about Google. I was responding to an assertion about "most software."
You do not need a license to use an API or even to replicate one for interoperability as that is fair use which is essentially the only reason to do so. Your assertion with regard to "most software" requiring licensing to utilize an API is incorrect. API's don't qualify for copyright. People can sue you for most anything and buying expensive and unnecessary licenses is not automatically a better answer t
Re: (Score:2)
. API's don't qualify for copyright
The supreme court already was asked to rule and that point, and they let the appellate court's ruling stand. APIs qualify for copyright, and there is no legal theory to distinguish APIs from any other part of code, as far as copyright goes.
You do not need a license to use an API
You better make sure you have one. This is mostly not a problem: most APIs you have these days already come with a license. Java did too, but Google didn't comply.
This is really no different than the WINE project. WINE would also fail to run some use cases and earlier in the project would fail in most cases
You clearly didn't read the link I linked to earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
"The supreme court already was asked to rule and that point, and they let the appellate court's ruling stand. "
The story we are commenting under is a new request that isn't settled and most of the circuits currently agree that API's can't be copyrighted including the one that matters.
"and there is no legal theory to distinguish APIs from any other part of code"
APIs aren't part of the code. You really shouldn't comment on topics you are ignorant of and really neither should courts but sadly we are stuck with
Re: (Score:2)
The story we are commenting under is a new request
Why on earth do you think the supreme court will decide to grant the request this time?
APIs aren't part of the code.
Oh yeah? So this:
"public final class String extends Object implements Serializable, Comparable, CharSequence {"
Is not code?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing the API, the abstracted standard and documentation which defines the interface, with the coded definition in their implementation. It's understandable because there will certainly be a massive amount of overlap in a new clean room implementation using that abstracted standard.
This is like a new state coming up with a drivers license and another state claiming it infringes on their copyright because it contains a picture, a dob, and a hologram and they look strikingly similar to tha
Re: (Score:2)
It's understandable because there will certainly be a massive amount of overlap in a new clean room implementation using that abstracted standard.
This was not a clean-room implementation. Google was sloppy.
I think you are confused because you don't understand the abstraction, filtration, comparison test. You can read about it. [zerobugsan...faster.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, even if its boilerplate, you can't deny that it's code and that it does something.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the naming, there is no creative element to it.
Apart from the naming, organization, and deciding what the functions will actually do.
Re: (Score:2)
For the line you provided, you've got to choose names and then order the parameters.
I also chose what it inherited from, which gets embedded in the compiled product.
Re: (Score:2)
Google was a bit sloppy, Harmony less so. Ultimately, it didn't matter, the one method that was inadvertently copied (rangeChevk) was the ONLY code that was found to infringe, other than the declarations, and the damages were found to be $0.
Properly done, AFC would filter out the declarations from consideration, assuming Google is correct and the (abstract) Java API is not protected by copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
The fair use defense is for doing reverse engineering (which involves copying protected expression) for the purpose of discovering the "functional requirements for compatibility", which are not protected by copyright. 102(b), Sega
If you can find out the information another way, such as if the specifications are published and freely available, there's no need to do reverse engineering, and any copying of protected expression for reverse engineering purposes would not be fair use any longer.
What you do with t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or they are very confident they own a lot of APIs and it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if they had to take a hit.
Google's recent behavior is pretty much loaded with horrible fuckery.
Do SC justices need technical expertese? (Score:2)
Not just that, both companies are Left leaning companies. So even assuming that the justices would be biased towards entities that are pro Republican (not that it means much these days), they'd have little to choose from in this particular case.
The thing that's interesting is - how much of tech expertise do these justices need? Obviously, none of them know the first thing about coding. So the most I can assume is that the plaintiffs would have to highlight high level of appropriation in order to make t
Re:JHMFC. Overreact much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Freely-available UNIX implementations have been available for DECADES . BSD. Linux. Hell, Solaris was open-sourced at one point.
And the owners of what you call "the UNIX kernel API" did NOTHING.
Doesn't matter. Estoppel doesn't apply. Novell didn't make any promises not to exert their copyright. They didn't know they could exert their copyright, until the Federal Circuit starting blathering around in not one but two idiot rulings. Depending on who you ask, they still can't. The Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits all say APIs aren't copyrightable at all, so the whole question of fair use is moot. The Third and Federal Circuits say they are copyrightable. The Federal Circuit went even farther, saying they're copyrightable and there's no way to make fair use of any API.
I read the 21 relevant pages from Google's writ, and I'd say it'll be granted. The second half of it hinges on fair use, and it's a weaker argument. The first half is all about the disagreements among the circuit courts, and that always attracts the attention of the Supreme Court.
Google's lawyers did attempt to address the earth-shattering ramifications if the Federal Circuit's ruling is allowed to stand, but not as much as I'd like. Hopefully they were saving the best parts of that for oral arguments. This Supreme Court has spent years asking, "Where's the harm?" and if you can't answer, you lose. If Google's lawyers successfully convey the harm, they have a good chance. They'd better describe the harm to all software everywhere though, not just the harm to Google software.
Google did point out that the Federal Circuit (full name United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) is disingenuous at best, malicious at worst, in their second overturning of the jury verdict that declared Google's use of Java APIs fair use. The Federal Circuit said that they assumed all findings of fact were completed by the jury (as they're required to do), then they contradicted both themselves and the jury and tossed out the verdict. I'm starting to wonder if the Federal Circuit botched their ruling on purpose in order to precipitate intervention by the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:3)
I read the 21 relevant pages from Google's writ, and I'd say it'll be granted. The second half of it hinges on fair use, and it's a weaker argument. The first half is all about the disagreements among the circuit courts, and that always attracts the attention of the Supreme Court.
Lawyers are trained to be convincing, and they are by tradition only giving one half of the case. Thus when you read one side's argument (or sit in court listening to one side's argument), it will usually sound convincing. To get a clear view, it is necessary to read both sides. Even better, read the judge's conclusion. [uscourts.gov] But don't make your analysis based on only one side's lawyers. They are biased by design.
Re: (Score:3)
You've got some santorum between your teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice trolling, but even if Linux were to die, there are still the BSDs that are available. Besides, Google has been looking more at the BSDs since their license is more compatible w/ what they need, and so have the other major companies. Also, is GPL 2.0 revokable? Even the FSF and Stallman haven't tried it, as that would end 99% of the GPL market - namely Linux.
Maybe they should seriously resume work on the HURD?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like beer too, but in fairness, both sides are corporate interests.
At least with Gorsuch, so far he's pretty consistent. Last summer he wrote a dissent wanting to get rid of the whole third-party doctrine! He might be the most willing of anybody on the bench to give copyright a constitutional smack-down!
This could easily end up with a 6-3 decision that slashdot would love.
Re: (Score:2)
While both sides are corporations, and we discussing it here are not going to do anything to anyone, it is still scary. What Oracle is claiming is that, if I built a chair, the joints of a plank are copyrightable. That is what API is - joining two different things together via a common interface. This is bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
"Raising a stink" when the R's would win the vote wouldn't have achieved anything except making the R's happy.
Your comment would be painfully ignorant if it was in good faith. But it wasn't.
Song titles aren't thousands of words long (Score:2)
I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion that the Java API can't be copyright, but I'm not convinced by your argument.
Titles of popular songs:
Come Home
Stay
One
Smile
I Love You
Given that song titles are typically 1-3 words, of course the same word is used as a title for multiple songs. In many cases there are ten different songs to hit the billboard charts with the same title.
The Java API is thousands of words. (Grotesquely oversized, some would say). The only way you end up with the same thing that Jav
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand their claims. At all.
They're not only claiming copyright on the work as a whole, they're claiming that each API call is a copyrighted passage, just like each sentence in a book is copyrighted. They're saying that the name of a method or function, along with its arguments, is a copyrightable creative passage.
There is literally only one word that is non-functional in that. So yes, it is exactly the same as copyrighting the name of a song.
We're talking purely about the interface definition
You mean all the same sentences in the whole book (Score:2)
I'd love to find a law that lets Google win this. I haven't seen a good one yet. Maybe Congress could make a law about interoperability, if Congress can ever do their job.
It's not one sentence. You can use one sentence from a book. You can't use thousands of sentences. And certainly not arranged in the same in the same chapters (objects).
Google has all the same stuff, thousands of words, arranged in the same structure. We're not talking about two or three words like a song title, or a sentence. The Java API
Re: (Score:2)
It's not one sentence. You can use one sentence from a book. You can't use thousands of sentences. And certainly not arranged in the same in the same chapters (objects).
It can be fair use. To claim fair use, you need to consider all of the four factors. Copying a large portion doesn't prevent a use from being fair use.
"Using most or all of a work does not bar a finding of fair use. It simply makes the third factor less favorable to the defendant." [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia suggests copying entire TV shows (which is more than thousands of sentences) as an example that was ruled fair use.
If you have time I strongly recommend reading the court's finding [uscourts.gov]. It is clear and well reasoned.
Unfortunately they fail all four factors of fair u (Score:2)
You're right the amount of copying isn't the only factor. The four factors are:
the purpose and character of your use (is it commercial, transformative?)
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken
the effect of the use upon the potential market for the original
Google fails the first. It's commercial. Original Java is a programming API, Google's copy is a programming API; there is no transformation into something else.
Google fails the second. There have been lots of pro
Re: Unfortunately they fail all four factors of fa (Score:2)
Thanks for the link, btw. (Score:2)
Btw thanks for the link to whichever decision that is. I'll read through it a bit later. I take it that's a court that ruled in favor of Google. I'm curious to read that because while I *want* Google to win, I can't imagine how they can under current law.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is, can I do what I want to as a programmer, even with this decision? Turns out the answer is, yes. All APIs that I want to use come with a license, and there is an interoperability fair-use defense available when companies don't want things like Wine to exist.
I've read most of it (Score:2)
I've read most of the opinion (ruling) and so far it's page after page of why Google should lose. I was thinking you had linked to a ruling FOR Google. I kinda want to skip to the the ruling to find out, but I kinda like the suspense too. :)
This ruling could affect interoperability, which is why I'd like to see Google win, but I don't think current law is in their side. I may come across a solid argument of why the law is on the side, but I haven't yet.
So far I've come across why the law *should* allow it (
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling could affect interoperability, which is why I'd like to see Google win, but I don't think current law is in their side. I may come across a solid argument of why the law is on the side
The law isn't on Google's side on this one. The court addressed interoperability in the ruling, you can search for interoperability to find it. I would tell you, but why ruin the surprise?
Interoperability is a valid fair use defense, though: see Sega vs Accolade [wikipedia.org]. Another potential interoperability defense is that the functional parts of the code can't be copyrighted, only the creativ
Re: (Score:2)
I went ahead and read the rest of it.
Note in Sega they copied a few bytes. That was important. Interoperability is a consideration, but the case should not be read to mean that you can do whatever you want for interoperability. Sega held that you can copy a few bytes of functional code for interoperability.
Re: (Score:2)
Interoperability is a consideration, but the case should not be read to mean that you can do whatever you want for interoperability.
Yes. Quantity is a factor also, but it is the third factor, and needs to be taken into consideration. If quantity were the only thing weighing against Google, and the other three factors favored Google, then would they have lost?
But actually three factors weighed against Google, and only one favored Google. And it is hard to justify that Google's use served the purpose of having copyright: to encourage the creation of art and culture by rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights
Re: (Score:2)
Original Java is a programming API
Java is a programming language
The API (actually APIs, there are many) is a list of function/method names and types, and their parameter names and types.
Oracle's claims are that copying the text describing the API is copyrighted and copying the description is not protected by fair use.
Allegedly, Google distributed copies of the API description with the Android development kit.
I suppose one possible alternative Google could have used was have their development kit installer automatically download and run the
Re: (Score:2)
A better analogy would be if you wrote a book. Then I wrote a book with a different book title, but used all the same chapter titles that you did. Except the actual content of each chapter is different from yours.
Oracle is basically saying that writing a book with the same chapter titles is copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that software falls in this grey area between discovery, invention, and creative work. However, the creative work aspect is weak despite the code as art examples because you can make an artistic toaster without toasters generally falling under copyright.
Being what it is functionally, an API should not be copyright-able and neither should software. Most software shouldn't be patent-able either. Very little is actually inventive and most algorithms are better argued as a discovery than an inven
Microsoft discovered Windows? Created it (Score:2)
I take it you're not a programmer, or not a very good one. There is a VAST difference between a very good programmer and a beginner - the problem does not in fact define how the solution must be written, and every programmer would write the same thing.
Linux and Windows are vastly different because Microsoft didn't *discover* an operating system, they *created* one. (Somebody else created DOS). Creating new things is called being creative.
> Complicated math was true before you stumbled on it and the sam
The court mentioned that - Google makes their own (Score:2)
The court actually brought that up. Google makes their own index of the web. if I were to steal a copy of Google's index and sell it, they may be able to sue me for copyright infringement.
Google's index is fair use of the snippets they use, the court has ruled, because it's transformative. You make a web page about iPad repair, Google makes an index of the web. Their use of a snippet from your page doesn't replace your page, in fact it makes your page more valuable for having been indexed.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not only claiming copyright on the work as a whole, they're claiming that each API call is a copyrighted passage, just like each sentence in a book is copyrighted. They're saying that the name of a method or function, along with its arguments, is a copyrightable creative passage.
It's more than that. It was the structure, sequence, and organization of the APIs. So Math.max() is probably not copyrightable, but Java.lang.math.max(), when combined with thousands other functions in the same library, is also copyrightable. Google didn't need to use the Java prefix.
The Java creators needed to make decisions like, "should Exception go into Java.lang, or should it go into java.runtime? Should String go into java.object, or should it go into java.util? Where should vector go?" So the orga
Software patents are fucking stupid (Score:2)
You are correct, and Jesus fucking Christ, why should he have to understand the cluster fuck of a situation this is? Copyright law should be pretty simple.
This is what we get when we let a bunch of fucking lawyers start doing stupid shit like copyrighting code in the first place. Code is math and algorithms, period. You cannot copyright math. Additionally, why don't you have to release source code to secure a copyright? If you don't, then it is a trade secret
You're right about that (Score:2)
You're correct, you don't understand. First, copyright and patent are two different things.
Second, what you can't patent is the laws of nature, including the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics. So you can't patent gravity - you CAN patent an elevator, which uses the laws of physics. You can't patent " x+y = y + x", you can patent machines that use gears and levers (which are multiplication). Java is not a law of nature. In fact in may be an abomination of nature. :)
Re: (Score:2)
It extends further out into similar algorithms in terms of function written in different languages. Once it is written in one language it is often an auto translation into another, can you keep copyrighting the same instructions from language to language. Can I simply grab your code, translate it into a new language and claim new algorithm, because they will be different. So it is expressions of function, not creative writing, those expressions of function are bound to the coding language and the problem to
Re: (Score:3)
There are several aspects to this. What you seem to be talking about is "substantial similarity", to show that copying occurred, because it's unlikely that it would happen just by chance.
To be infringing, there must be copying, since independent creation is allowed. However, some aspects of a copyrighted work are not protected by copyright, and even if you do copy those parts, there is no infringement.
102(b), that Google references, says that various specific abstractions can't be copyrighted (as opposed
"in the Java language" (Score:2)
Google is mistating merger.
Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986), is a great example of merger. It was a movie about cops in the South Bronx. Like another movie about cops in the South Bronx, "the scenery would include drunks, stripped cars, prostitutes, and rats." That's not a copyright violation, the court ruled, because ANY MOVIE about Bronx cops would have those sorts of things.
What's not protectable are elements that EVERY WORK in the genre tend to have. Space movies have laser w
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're describing scenes a faire, which is related but different.
Oracle agreed in court that Google can freely use the Java language. That was not part of this case. Google's bytecode interpreter was not accused off copyright infringement. There were some patent issues, but those were resolved in Google'a favor.
The only other issue was the Java API, and in particular, the names. Are the names part if the unprotected functionality in the Java API?
"Authorship", which is what you can copyright, is pred
Re: (Score:2)
> Choosing to write a program in Java is not a copyrightable choice Having made that one choice, the declarations for the Java API now can only be written one way.
Writing a program *in* Java doesn't require you to implement Java the Java API.
Writing a program that *is* Java requires implementing Java API.
They are allowed to USE Java. It does not follow that they are allowed to BE Java. I can distribute write a program that USES Windows, that doesn't mean I can distribute a CD that IS Windows or that l
Re: (Score:2)
If the Java API is a "system or method of operation", and is excluded from copyright protection by 102(b), why wouldn't I be allowed to re-implement the Java API if I want to?
If I rewrite Linux from scratch, without copying any source code, copying only the functional requirements, I won't be infringing even if I ignore the GPL.
If you make a movie with the characters Han Solo and Yoda from Star Wars, you'd be infringing on the copyrights on those two characters. They are not excluded from copyright protect
ReactOS needs 96 MB, so not like Windows :) (Score:2)
ReactOS requires 96 MB, so I'm going to say it's not just like Windows. :)
In fact, it was discovered that ReactOS developers copy/pasted code from Windows (via a disassembler), so indeed there are copyright concerns. Microsoft didn't care enough to even comment about it. Perhaps that was because ReactOS has dozens of users, but anyway Microsoft didn't indicate that they *care* about ReactOS doing blatant copyright violation, copy-pasting from Windows.
If Google were making billions of dollars distributing
Let's try a Star Wars analogy (Score:2)
Let's try looking at this from another angle.
I have a right to make a space fighting movie. The general idea used in Star Trek, Stars Wars, etc isn't copyright protected. What is protected is the storyline, the particular collection of characters, character names, catch phrases, etc. So let's try translating what you wrote to such a situation. You said:
--
Google's claim is that the abstract Java API is a "system or method of operation", and that it includes the specific names as part of that.
--
Do I have the
Re: (Score:2)
The names are not copyrighted, though the characters are, and the names can be trademarked.
IP Law - Home to Roost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IP Law - Home to Roost (Score:5, Informative)
* Google was founded in Sept 1998. I'm not sure exactly what month the extension passed Congress, but I guarantee Google didn't have a seat at the table back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The U.S. legal system is often disfunctional. (Score:2)
It's copyrighting the electric socket (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM have been patenting interfaces for decades.
It is not the job of the court to decide whether the law makes sense. Merely how it applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, well the only way the SC will take it up is if they get flooded with friend of the court briefs by companies that will be affected by the ruling. Any company relying on an API created by someone else should be immediately filing those. If the appeal is allowed to stand there's going to be a LOT of lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they only provided a portion of the Java API, then added much more of their own (and created independently the other 97% of the source code of the portions of the API they did copy, the actual implementation).
The claim is that the API as a whole is a "system or method of operation", so those parts necessary to describe that API (the declarations) are not protected (because 102(b) says that "systems" and "methods of operation" are excluded from protection).
Thousands of names are not needed to make someth
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft lost because they tried to call it "Java", without having a license to use the trademark.
Google never called it Java, never claimed it was Java, only tried to make the core of the API compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, really. They use the " Java programming language", which Oracle agrees that anyone can use.
They neve claim they are using the Java API.
"Android includes a set of core libraries that provides most of the functionality available in the core libraries of the Java programming language."
Re: (Score:3)
The lawsuit with Microsoft was about trademark and breach of contract. Sun failed in a copyright action against MS.
The case against Google is copyright, not trademark. Google never claimed that their platform was Java, as in the Java Platform, using the Java trademarks.
The linked page says Google uses the Java programming language (which they do) and implements parts of the Java API (which they do). None of that is claiming to be Java, nor do they use any Java trademarks.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sun sued, won, and we are better for it. Java was neither fractured nor destroyed."
In what way are we better for that? Java is only used so widely because schools pumped it out to legions of students.
API==program is like water==plumbing (Score:2)
I think the confusion here is because it's called an "application PROGRAMMING interface". Despite having the word "programming" in it, an API is not a program.
APIs are to programming as plumbing is to water. Or as electricity is to an electric socket. NOT the same thing at all.
It's as if we said "you can copyright electricity", and then somebody said well it's called an "electrical connector", therefore I can copyright it.
Who owns the Posix/*nix API (Score:4, Interesting)
If Google loses, what happens to Unix?
I can imagine that the court would rule that merely copying the style of the API is not copyright. But copying the exact text of it, down to the names of the methods is another matter entirely.
You cannot copyright a genre of novels, or the types of characters within. But you can certainly copyright specific characters with specific names.
It flows exactly to *Nix. SCO might live again.
We would have to go through all of our applications and rename the methods. Or new legislation would need to be passed, which is unthinkable.
Interestingly, a big loser in that would be Oracle themselves. They should have bought SCO (or whoever now "owns" Unix) before starting this. Then they could have it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they'll have to start digging into the question: Since writing a client that uses a whole API is clearly a copyright violation, what percent of an API can you use within the confines of "fair use?"
If google loses, a whole shitstorm of fights about the boundaries of fair use will be mandated.
Anything that uses a whole API will obviously be out. The future will be giant bloated APIs so that people can fairly use a large enough portion to end up with a useful program. Or mixing a few calls each to a bunch
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone will finally have to move to GNU [gnu.org], I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
If Google loses, what happens to Unix?
POSIX is fair use. Although the API may be copyrighted, POSIX was created to enable interoperability, by the copyright holders themselves. These things favor fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
but use with the explicit permission of the copyright holders (minus any patents).
I think that is true, but I haven't been able to find the license or permission anywhere.
I don't know if there is such an interoperability exception in the US copyright law, but if there is it should apply.
It's not explicitly written in the law, but some court cases have found it a valid defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Whew (Score:3)
It's a good thing APIs weren't copyrightable in the olden days or Compaq would have been shut down on their firmware clone and there's be no PC industry and IBM would still be the bad guy and Apple would have died after their 1984 commercial and you'd be stuck with CGA video and 640k of RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
We wouldn't even be able to use the CPU features in ASM without a new license from the vendor.
The whole world would have to switch to RISC-V! /s
ARM already has CMSIS though. So not really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not though. Like Betamax the IBM PC would have eventually failed and be replaced by something more open, and thus cheaper and better supported. VHS wasn't even as good in terms of picture quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle wants to ban forwards engineering too! That's the main difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue of reverse engineering and whether it is allowed is purely a copyright issue, that's the only thing that could prevent it.
Interface copyright: WINE, ReactOS (Score:2)
If interfaces can be copyrighted then WINE and ReactOS are dead unless they receive the blessing of Microsoft.
If WINE is dead, Steam on Linux is also dead.
If interfaces can be copyrighted, the message then is: if it's not an ISO standard so similar, don't touch it.
Re: (Score:2)
I remembered another one: Ndiswrapper. That implements Windows interfaces to make Windows WiFi drivers work on Linux when there's no native driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Use Java? Then you deserve whatever happens. (Score:5, Funny)
You fucking take that shit about BASIC back right this second.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It licenses the interface to develop compatible software and Google refused to license.
Licensing something to me that you don't own because you can't own it is fraud, not some ex post facto justification that a thing can be owned.
SCO spent years trying that shit, and ultimately lost, on every front. Their very last attempt was shut down in 2016, dismissed with prejudice, which means they're not allowed to ever make the argument again.
Re: (Score:2)
Which was actually a great way to get acquired by Oracle and make money for shareholders. Mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
Java is slow and shitty, software written in it almost always leaks and it's a nightmare to support.
Do you know why people use java? Because schools were obsessed with teaching java.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
None of what you said means that you can enforce a claim where you granted a license, though. Revoking the license does not revoke the contract that created the license.
If you grant a permanent license, that grant is a contract. If you revoke the license without a new agreement, you've placed yourself in violation of the original contract; you'll be required to return the license in the end. And you may be formally found to have been naughty, even.
The stuff abo