I'd say almost every software engineer should be rooting for Google here. The implications of being able to claim copyright infringement on anyone implementing an Application Programming Interface are staggering - it would impact every open source project that tried to interoperate with any company's services, for instance.<p>The world is not going to be better for extending the protections Oracle wants here.<p>Alsup's ruling is sane, shows his clear understanding of coding and the history of Java and how it was licensed out to the world under Sun, and is really very simple to understand: <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120531172522459" rel="nofollow">http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120531172522...</a><p>The appeals court fucked this up, hard. I would like to think Alsup's ruling will be upheld -- groklaw has fantastic quotes from him during the trial. At one point, he himself notes he had coded from the spec some of the functions Oracle complained about and disagreed with Oracle counsel statements. Refreshing from our judicial branch, to say the least.
I hate to say it, but I’m not optimistic about Google’s case here. From a purely technical point of view, APIs being free to reuse is an awesome thing that makes for a more vibrant and competitive software ecosystem.<p>At the same time, Oracle’s characterization of their API as “original software” is not entirely off base, as anyone who has spent time and energy creating and API would know. The amount of design and work required to create an elegant and useful API is huge, and while it would irreparably harm software as a field to call it copyrightable, calling it anything other than an “original” work is a weak position.<p>Personally, I’m dreading the outcome of this case.
It's ridiculous this is being decided by the courts instead of legislatively.<p>Fair use doctrine was obviously never intended to apply to reimplementing API's either way because it didn't exist yet.<p>Rather than have a court make up some kind of ultimately arbitrary precedent ruling either way, Congress should be debating the ramifications of whether reimplementing API's is explicitly fair use or not, considering both pros and cons to the economy, with opportunity for all tech companies to weigh in -- and then pass a good law.<p>Courts interpret law, they aren't supposed to make it, and the Supreme Court <i>certainly</i> isn't even remotely qualified to determine what's the best policy for a healthy dynamic tech economy here. The law is so ambiguous here that Congress is shirking its duties by not establishing relevant law here.
Notes on scheduling for anyone who wants to follow along:<p>Google now has 45 days to file a brief on the merits that explains their position.<p>Once that is filed, Oracle has 30 days to file a brief on the merits that explains their position.<p>Google then has 30 more days to file a reply to Oracle's brief. That brings us to the 28th of February, assuming everyone uses all their time (and no more).<p>The court can extend all those deadlines.<p>Once all the briefs have been filed the case will (probably) be scheduled for oral argument. It looks like oral argument is usually scheduled several months out, and the last day for oral argument this term is April 29. It might meet that deadline, otherwise it will be pushed to next October. If the oral argument is heard this term then we can expect a ruling by the time the court goes into recess for the year (end of june).<p>Of course a ruling doesn't mean the case is over, it may well then return to lower courts for more argument. (It almost certainly will for various details, like attorney's fees and/or damages).<p>This case started August 13, 2010. It's been almost a decade. Something is very wrong with how our court system functions.
I think one could make a good analogy to Baker v. Selden[1], a case from the 1900s about the copyrightability of blank accounting forms, in that APIs are the modern day equivalent of blank forms that are filled out and submitted to a computer.<p>[1]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden</a>
Thinking from first principles, and forgive me for going into hippie philosophical mode here but I can’t see how an API can have copyright that is owned.<p>Creating an API is of course a creative process. Getting the API right is, for me, the most creative part of programming. When well written, it describes to a human how the software truly works, with the implementation really being the computer version of what the function name is already telling you. A browser rendering engineer could be defined just as much by the model that the DOM API describes as it is defined by the actual source code. They both describe the outside and inside of the same thing, a system which, when it’s interface is shared, is shared between us all and not just under the sole ownership of the first person to describe it.<p>It’s hard to see an API therefore, particularly a published one, as a traditional piece of intellectual property that can be subject to copyright. One cannot copyright F=ma or e=mc^2. Once these object models about software are discovered they are like descriptions of the natural world and their formulae are open and shared for all to use.<p>Yes: how you build your specific machine that makes use of and conforms to the API — the actual source code for function implementations — can be your <i>intellectual property</i>, but the underlying description of the natural world and its API are discoveries that are part of
the commons, for all to interact with, use, and re-use.<p>The only difference between natural laws, in my analogy to physics, and software APIs is that there is only one physical world with a limited set of natural laws that describe it. With software engineering we create our own new universes everyday, but they are common universes for us all to share.
> "We are confident the Supreme Court will ... reject Google’s continuing efforts to avoid responsibility for copying Oracle’s innovations."<p>Serious question: which part of Oracle buying Java from Sun was innovative?
Good. In my view, the existing ruling desperately needs to be overturned.<p>And I'm cautiously optimistic. The Supreme Court has shown itself to be far more sane on IP than the Federal Circuit.
~grellas's comment on sibling story that didn't win the upvote-to-front-page tournament:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21548334" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21548334</a>
In the case that Oracle wins solely on Structure, Sequence, and Organization, I don't see how such a ruling immediately spells doom for competitors trying to interoperate.<p>Competitors can still publish a functionally identical but differently organized API, then provide a competitor2us.sh script to statically change references to their own API. Sure, the friction is higher, but not unreasonable.
Assuming Oracle wins, what would be necessary to differentiate an implementation from their owned interfaces? For example, would a method named FuckOracle_min be different enough to not run afoul - or is it the plain text description of the API that covers what does / doesn't constitute infringement?
please dear god just copy paste alsup's ruling. either his first saying you can't copyright it, or his second that clean room interface is fair use.
If the future of computer programming is important to you, read the briefing calling for cert in this case.
A timeline and references can be found at <a href="http://www.project-disco.org/oracle-v-google-case/" rel="nofollow">http://www.project-disco.org/oracle-v-google-case/</a> .<p>For a programmer, the weight of the evidence against copyright for APIs is conclusive as presented in the briefing. Unfortunately, there are no programmers on the Supreme Court; while Judge Alsop did learn Java Programming so he could understand the issues,the Circuit Judges who reviewed Alsop's decision were not so dedicated.
This case clearly shows how taking something from the public and making is private is essentially a greedy and harmful activity. Unfortunately, our economy is based on this idea.... it doesn't have to be though.
What’s the current status, today, right now, of the copyrightability of APIs? Does the Federal Circuit decision stand because it hasn’t yet been overruled or is it not yet in force because it’s being appealed?
My mechanic says he can not service my car because the nut to open the hood latch has a copyrighted shape and the owner of the copyright on that shape advised me not to use my adjustable wrench or he would sue, but I could rent his crescent wrench each time I want to service may car, or I could keep the creascent wrench at home and the installed counter on the wrench would talk to his billing software and he would send an invoice every month...<p>In 3 words or less, compare and contrast this to the Google-Oracle copyright fiasco...
Thinking cynically, could an Oracle win increase demand for programmers? Companies may need to hire lots of extra programmers to audit what they have, and possibly rewrite or make trivial and mechanical API changes to avoid infringement. Sort of like the broken window theory from economics - break ALL the windows.<p>I mean, API-copyright plumbing wouldn't be my first choice of work, but might make for a decent part time remote job while I spent most of my energy on something else that is actually useful.
Was wondering would it be possible to get a petition on change.org started in googles favor? I think we need the court to understand the ramifcations of oracles arguements.<p>No more openjdk, etc.
This is an interesting comparison to Dataflex vs. Powerflex: <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLRev/1998/12.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLRev/1998/12.html</a> In this case, the use of “copied” reserved words was at the heart of it. I never understood why reserved words could be protected.
Important note:<p>The SC has already denied to hear on whether APIs' SSOs are copyrightable, suggesting that it agrees with the Fed. Cir. opinion that they are.<p>This hearing is about Google's Fair Use defense.... and I don't expect Google to win on fair use unless the SC intends to really break new ground on fair use analyses.
I can't help and wonder though, as much as I think it would be madness for APIs to be copyrighted, including a language's standard library. Would I just have more job opportunities as a dev if it was? Since much more work would be needed to provide alternative solutions to all these?
If the supreme court rules in favor of Oracle here, you can expect trolls to start suing small businesses for copyright infringement based off of old software APIs. I think Americans should be encouraging tech startups not laying legal minefields for them.
One effect of a ruling that APIs cannot be copyrighted would be to make it more likely they can be subject to patent protection. That's probably better, but don't be surprised if we see API patents.
When this started Oracle was the evil one. Now we have your run of the mill predatory capitalism vs a particularly nasty and dangerous form of surveillance capitalism, which makes oracle look harmless.
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but Google created this problem because they didn't want to pay Oracle for commercial use of Java.<p>This isn't always a problem. When Compaq did the same thing to create the first IBM compatible PC's, they did so very carefully, ensuring there was no one working on the team with prior knowledge.<p>I don't believe Google did the same thing and that's where my problem is. If they can look through Oracle's code, and just re-write it slightly to do the same thing to avoid commercial licensing, that doesn't help Open Source, it hurts it.
It is property law and the ability to protect one's rights to property that has granted the creators of property a return on their investment of resources into property.<p>If creators of property cannot protect their property, there will be less return on that property and thus, less incentive to create it.<p>Oracle bought Sun, and with that purchase, the ownership of intellectual property in the form of the Java API. Google then proceeded to copy that property into their own property without abiding by the usage restrictions Oracle, the property owner, specified. That was theft of Oracle's property.<p>If the Supreme Court does not uphold protections of property, I believe, we will see less investment in such property.<p>I am not sure if that is good or bad for the future of the world, but I do believe had Sun not had property rights to Java, they wouldn't have created it.