I think if Oracle wins, the best thing that could happen is IBM immediately suing for infringment on SQL. And since Oracle built their whole business on the SQL standard, IBM should ask for an amount high enough that it's sure to bankrupt Oracle.<p>I believe that's a fair price to pay for breaking the software industry.
I'm not sure I'll ever properly get my head around this case. On one hand, it's certainly possible to make an intellectually sound argument that APIs are eligible for copyright. On the other hand, such an argument seems to imply that IBM PC clones, MS-DOS, and Linux have all been infringing from the start and it's just that everybody has been too timid to actually enforce their API copyrights over the course of decades where there were plenty of affiliated deep pockets to raid. And that seems <i>really</i> hard to swallow.
Man I would absolutely LOVE to see IBM suing the pants off of Oracle and sending those muppets into insolvency. I don't think there is a single company in the software industry more widely hated than Oracle today, it seems to me they have devolved into mere patent trolls because they couldn't figure out a way to adapt their business model.
Whenever I hear Oracle mentioned it reminds me that it's once again time to re-watch the "Never make the mistake of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison" rant.<p><a href="https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2085" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2085</a>
There are some very basic elements of this case that this article (and most others) miss, which makes me wonder if they'd read the relevant court documents at all. That Oracle is "trying to copyright APIs" is a popular (and biased) framing of the case, but this is not at all what they're actually saying. As I understand the filings, they're saying that <i>if there is some already-copyrighted work and you copy substantial portions of it</i>, those portions aren't <i>exempt</i> from copyright if they're "declaration code" (although the copying, as always, could <i>potentially</i> be fair use). In other words, it's not a new kind of copyright, but about exemption from established copyright. So regardless of whether SQL is an API, unless anyone copied substantial portions of copyrighted code from IBM, this case -- as it actually is, not as it's presented by some media outlets -- is irrelevant.<p>It is hard to find any popular blog post that faithfully represents the sides' claims, so it's best to read what they actually are in one of these locations:<p>* <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-956.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...</a><p>* <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/google-llc-v-oracle-america-inc/" rel="nofollow">https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/google-llc-v-ora...</a>
I have a question that's slightly off on a tangent.<p>The project for some compilers courses is implementing a compiler for a subset for Java. Would the current ruling mean that doing the project is copyright infringement?
I fully expect the Supreme Court to rule as narrowly as they can on this case. As others have pointed out, to rule otherwise could potentially disrupt the entire software industry.<p>"Alternatively, the Supreme Court could hold that software interfaces are sometimes eligible for copyrights but that Google's copying falls under the fair use doctrine. This would save Google from writing Oracle a 10-figure check, but it could still drag the software industry into a legal quagmire."
I think there's a case to be made that there's nothing novel in an API itself (emphasis on the interface). The novelty comes from the implementation, whereby competition actually kicks in (novel algorithms, data structures, storage techniques, etc.). But maybe I'm missing something? I come from a distributed systems background, so my bias is likely titled.
I'm split.<p>IBM wanted companies to embrace SQL - because then people implement applications already compatible with their database product, and conceptually could migrate without rewriting their applications.<p>Amazon wanted companies to embrace S3 - for the same reason. Or maybe they didn't, but they decided that the API was the least significant compelling part of their product - that people would still choose S3 regardless of whether other storage offerings had the same API - for the cost, and durability.<p>Sun wanted Google to use Java. Because more developers using the language, regardless of the underlying implementation is better for the entire ecosystem.<p>Oracle doesn't.<p>So to some degree i do feel like consent matters here. It doesn't matter if Oracle copied Amazon's S3 API illegally if Amazon doesn't care enough to pursue it.<p>Finally, I hate arguments that say "It's just the API". We all know a good API makes or breaks developer tools.<p>Ultimately, I feel like it goes without question that a decision in Oracle's favour will cause irrevocable damage to the industry and permit all sorts of bad actors to start looking to purchase ownership to APIs just so they could sue those they consider infringers.<p>But I can't help but feel that ultimately Oracle has a point :(
Oracle implemented similar technology at a time when organic growth was good for both companies. More technologist adopting SQL meant more sales for both companies. Oracle implementations on IBM hardware were and still are pretty common. I think IBM had no good reason to shoot a competitor that likely was helping their bottom line via adoption and popularization of database technology. The industry and the technology were evolving. Squashing it would have been a bad move for them at the time.
Oracle seems to have partnered with, surprise, Breitbart, to present their side on this case.<p>Source: <a href="https://twitter.com/joshbloch/status/1237518298922745861" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/joshbloch/status/1237518298922745861</a>
two things<p>1) the comparison may be inapplicable. The case in hand does not rise or fall on hypocrisy. I am a bad actor does not forbid me pursuing a law case based on the law I break myself in another matter.<p>2) IBM has at least three strategies<p>a) leave alone: let sleeping dogs lie
b) pursue oracle but settle for cash or in-kind or IPR swap or RAND, or some outcome which advantages them (Redhat?) but nobody else
c) be an advocate for a movement and take a posture in the wider interest.<p>What do you think is more likely?
Copying a functional spec - like for SQL - is fine. But copying implementation code is not (unless that's the only way it can be implemented).<p>Unethicalprotip: publish proprietary source to bait copying. Then sue.