6 ms·

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 make

by jfasi 7y ago

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. 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. Personally, I’m dreading the outcome of this case.

thesausageking 7y ago
Google's argument is that it falls under fair use to do a clean room implementation of the APIs. District Judge Alsup agreed with this legal idea: "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical."
- gpm 7y ago
  Google has several arguments, I find most of them persuasive. The fair use one is sort of a fallback. The more immediate argument is that APIs aren't copyrightable material, since there isn't more than one way to write them. You can't write the API differently and still let existing java programs run with your standard library.
  - glofish 7y ago
    They could design their own API and provide an "invisible shim" that transforms the calls to the original API into theirs.
    - gpm 7y ago
      To implement such an "invisible shim" you would still need to write the exact same API that oracle is claiming is copyrighted to let other programs build against it. It's not the internals of the functions that this case is about, it's literally about "class ArrayList { void clear() { [this part excluded from case] } ... }"
      - glofish 7y ago
        not exactly. there is a big difference between an API exposed to all other programmers in the world - versus one that is there for say compatibility. Their entire API works the same way as Java system and you program it as Java - it would be very different if say Android was programmed in Go and they had a way to translate Java programs into Go.
        gpm 7y ago
        I assume your first post was in response to my "you can't write the API differently" paragraph. If not we are talking past eachother, sorry. If so, your followup is that focusing on Google's actions is missing the point. If there is only one (or a small number) of ways to write it then it isn't copyrighted, so Google can do literally whatever it wants. If there are many ways to write it, the argument fails, and Google taking a more minimal approach to copying it wouldn't change that (it might change the fair use analysis, but that's a separate discussion). It's more of a nitpick, but your reply also exaggerates the scope of the case. No one is arguing in this case that Google was not free to implement Android or an API in Java, they are arguing about re-implementing Java's standard library APIs. As far as this case goes I don't think there is any salient distinction between implementing android in Go, and implementing android in Java with a different standard library api.
- tenebrisalietum 7y ago
  The whole PC industry was deeply affected, in a positive manner for consumers, in a negative manner for IBM, by Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS ROM API. Imagine if users of BIOS/UEFI API had to pay royalties to IBM (which derived it from CP/M).
  - hollerith 7y ago
    >Imagine if users of BIOS/UEFI API had to pay royalties I always thought that every PC maker did have to pay royalties to Phoenix or one of the other BIOS vendors. I know that open-source BIOSes, e.g., coreboot (formerly known as LinuxBIOS), exist, but I got the impression that even at this late stage in the BIOS game, only a minority of machines ship with them. I always thought that Compaq created its clean-room implementation because IBM outright refused to license their BIOS (to Compaq or anyone else).
    - jpollock 7y ago
      Let's rephrase... Imagine a world where Compaq was unable to create a cleanroom implementation of IBM's BIOS because that involved re-implementing the copyrighted APIs.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - all2 7y ago
      Where I work we have a line item for every computer we make for a BIOS royalty. So this happens at least sometimes.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        On the copyright of the actual software by Phoenix or Award or whoever, not an API licensing fee.
    - simcop2387 7y ago
      that's the difference though, theyrr free to make one or use any of the existing ones with the conditions of the authors. they're not forbidden to make their own or use a competitor's like the oracle ruling could otherwise mean.
- saghm 7y ago
  That was only after the appeals court stuck down Alsup's previous ruling that APIs couldn't be copyrighted and sent the issue back down to him to determine whether it was fair use.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
My understanding is that this case has produced emails inside Google about essentially how to avoid licensing Java. In the light of the incredible profit machine Google is, and how large a monopoly Android is, its hard to imagine any judge looking favorably on a plan to avoid paying licensing for something to build a multi-billion dollar industry. That being said, I feel ruling against Oracle would be also very perilous for open software from for profit entities, as it would have a harmful chilling effect on companies trying to dual license or keep their technology open. Arguments Google had made in earlier stages used the GPL-licensed OpenJDK to justify using their non-GPL implementation.
- lostmsu 7y ago
  It is kinda interesting, that if Oracle wins this, then Google, and specifically Android will effectively become GPL-infringers.
  - alok-g 7y ago
    I believe there's more. Oracle had specific clauses in the licence terms to prevent usage of JVM on mobile. In other words, Google actually releasing Android under GPL is not enough for the case to be finished off.
- danShumway 7y ago
  I don't get this perspective. The Open Source movement relies on adversarial operability far more than for-profit entities do. Would WINE be legal if Oracle won? Would Oracle's OpenOffice be able to read and save Microsoft document formats? Replicating APIs has always been a huge part of the Open Source movement.
  - gpm 7y ago
    The Wine case is particularly amusing, because WSL (v1) would be equally infringing in the exact opposite direction.
    - deleted 7y ago
danShumway 7y ago
We have precedent that game mechanics can't be copyrighted -- they get classified as "inventions" and have to be patented instead. Obviously IANAL, but to me as a game designer, mechanics aren't any less creative work than narrative. In fact, I'm spending more of my creative energy on mechanics than I am on story. So the lines to me just seem incredibly arbitrary, or at least I don't understand the legal differences well enough to figure out intuitively where they lie. I am incredibly grateful that game mechanics can't be copyrighted, but game mechanics don't feel like inventions to me. A game mechanic is how I express an idea. I tried to make a prediction about which way this would go, and I genuinely don't know -- not even that my prediction is uncertain, I don't feel like I know enough to even make a prediction at all. It does make me nervous. I think it's important that the Supreme Court hear it, and I'm glad they agreed to, but it would be utterly disastrous if this got decided in Oracle's favor. My (perhaps incorrect) impression is that the Supreme Court is not particularly fond of the 9th, and have something of a history of slapping down attempts at copyright expansion. A ruling against Oracle would be fantastic, and would maybe even open the door for talking about blocking copyright on grounds of compatibility. I guess I'm just nervous because it feels like the stakes are really high. At this point, there's nothing really that people like me can do, right? It's just up to Oracle and Google's lawyers?
- twright 7y ago
  > At this point, there's nothing really that people like me can do, right? It's just up to Oracle and Google's lawyers? Yes, with regard to this case, there’s nothing we can do at this point. In the longer term, it’s up to law makers on the state and federal level to address shortcomings and expansions of copyright law. So vote! (Or, I guess if you are particularly wealthy, lobby!)
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  You, or an industry group you are part of, could file an amicus brief, but, yeah, there's not a lot.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    You could also try to get your company to file an amicus brief as well.
monocasa 7y ago
Taking time and energy doesn't define copyright. There's tons of acts that take time and energy, and don't grant you a century long government backed monopoly on anything almost like it. For instance, recipes, and tables of contents aren't copyrightable. Going into case law, Sony v Bleem made it pretty clear that clean room reimplementations of APIs are on the table. Going into US code, the otherwise crappy DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering for interoperability. ie. interoperability even when the original vendor won't even tell you what the API is. Going into practicalities, who owns SQL? Who owns POSIX? The entire idea that APIs can have copyright is blatantly in contrast to decades of law, and is only happening because the CAFC is going off on it's own and ignoring 9th circuit precedent.
- tzs 7y ago
  > Taking time and energy doesn't define copyright For those who would like more detail on this, the major case on this in the US is Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) [1]. This is not necessarily the case in other countries. See [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  > Going into case law, Sony v Bleem made it pretty clear that clean room reimplementations of APIs are on the table. Sony sued Bleem because of screenshots. The legality of compatible products such as emulators was not evaluated by the court. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11837224078052556056 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=118372240780525... > The legality of the emulator is not at issue in this lawsuit. > The issue in this appeal is the validity of the method by which Bleem is advertising its product. > In various advertising media, Bleem has included comparative "screen shots" of Sony PlayStation games. > We conclude that it is a fair use for Bleem to advertise comparatively only between what PlayStation games actually look like on a television and what they actually look like on a computer when played with the emulator.
eqvinox 7y ago
> From a purely technical point of view, The technical point of view needs to be combined with the legal one here, and — > 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. just because something takes a lot of work, that doesn't automatically mean it is copyrightable. An API doesn't implement anything, it describes a function. Even if it describes a lot of functions and they mesh together really well, there's a distinction between "what" a program does and "how" a program does something. To compare with literature copyright, there are a ton of romance novels out there — pretty sure you can find a lot of common patterns on "what" story they tell. However, only the "how" is copyrighted, you can't prevent anyone from writing a story with the same outline as an existing one. (For literature, the problem becomes really tricky since the crossing over from "what" to "how" is kinda fluid; e.g. you can't just swap out character names. Software is actually easier there.)
- marcoseliziario 7y ago
  Exactly. An implementation of an API is copyrightable. Not the API itself. With a lot of goodwill, with some very generous interpretation, an API could be patentable, but copyrightable seems absurd to me.
- smadurange 7y ago
  I don't think the comparison with literature makes sense. API is what defines a software. For instance, if someone copies Microsoft suite full public interface (including the UI which is part of the interface it would be a problem even if the implementation was different). API signature is the UI equivalent for a library/programming interface software. So, I agree with the original commentors concerns here. Oracle's got a point too.
  - eqvinox 7y ago
    > API signature is the UI equivalent for a library/programming interface software. It isn't. "A main window with toolbars and an edit area." is the equivalent of the API signature. The layout, icons, ordering, etc. is artistic work of the "how" and copyrightable. (FWIW by your logic, LibreOffice would be violating Microsoft's copyright already and we could only ever have one office suite in the world.)
abledon 7y ago
Wasn't there some judge a couple years back who , in order to understand a case properly, taught himself java ?
- gumby 7y ago
  The very same judge, Alsup, whose ruling was overturned, hence this Hail Mary/saving throw to the Supreme Court.
- elygre 7y ago
  I wonder how he deals with medical malpractice cases.
jcranmer 7y ago
If you read the amici briefs, some of the people who actually wrote that API are explicitly disagreeing with Oracle's position.
- bondolo 7y ago
  This would seem to call in to question their being "friends of the court" rather than associated with a particular litigant, especially in the cases where they chose to also work for Google and likely have an a interest in the outcome of this specific case. As opposed to legitimate amici who are generally more concerned with the precedent.
  - zucker42 7y ago
    If you're talking about the 78 programmer amici brief, only 12 have any connection at all to Google (only 5 are employees), and each of those are affected personally, beyond association with Google. This is addressed directly in the brief. Also when the commenter said "wrote the API", he was referring to the Oracle/Sun Java API, not the Google Android API.
wyldfire 7y ago
> 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 This is not merely a technical benefit, it's a practical one and represents the status quo. The fact that there's no precedent isn't because it's new, it's because no one ever thought it was infringing before.
- Spivak 7y ago
  Nobody might believe that such a thing is infringing but there are plenty of people who are mad that a competitor just copies and pastes their API. Smartcar was such a case that made it to HN. I really do think the determination for this case ought to be if you copy an API to facilitate interaction with existing software then you should be in the clear. If you do the same because it’s easier than coming up with your own then I think it should be infringement.
zmmmmm 7y ago
I don't think it's actually about that. APIs are facts, and facts are not copyrightable. How is an API a fact? You have a system, in the real world. It is a "thing". There are facts about this thing: if you send it particular bytes, it does X, if you send other bytes, it does Y. The fact that it does this is empirically derived. There are not two or more options for it, it's like gravity or electromagnetism. APIs are facts about the systems they apply to, so while there is creativity in designing them, there is no creativity in building a system that interacts with them. There is exactly one way derived from the empirical fact of how it works. Where the case IS weak is that there IS creativity in how you document and organise the API. And I'm pretty sure Google's re-implementation was very similarly organised to the real Java. That will be the crack Oracle will be trying to exploit here. But its not actually about the original work being "original" or even "creative".
jrochkind1 7y ago
In general, the amount of time/energy/cost invested in something is not a prime indicator of whether it is copyrightable, under the law. This is a misconception. Facts are not copyrightable no matter how much time/energy/cost went into compiling them, and this is clearly established law. Google's case is that an API specification or implementation is more like a set of facts. Which as a software engineer, seems pretty plausible to me, they do seem like a set of facts, a description of fact about how software works. On the other hand, unlike facts, they were not purely observed, but were indeed invented by humans -- but recipes aren't copyrightable either, even though they are not observed but invented too. Neither are the rules of a game. These are all considered more like 'facts' than creative works. Doesn't matter if eg you spent years and millions of dollars researching food chemistry to make your recipe. I don't think its entirely clear who will win, but I don't think Google's case is as weak as you think, although i agree that Oracle's contention isn't entirely off base. . In particular, in general, how much time and energy went into making something is not generally one of the most significant factors in determining copyright or fair use. (Additionally, the well-established law around reverse engineering and creating clones -- that it is allowed -- is in Google's favor, as that analogy seems pretty strong too). Copyright law is -- has always been, or at least for 100 years -- about a bunch of competing factors balanced against each other. And when it comes to technology advances, has always relied on analogies to previous technologies and industries, and who has the most persuasive analogy. And then we have the fact that the people deciding what analogy applies best may not entirely understand the technology as a social fact...
bborud 7y ago
I don't agree with your argument. I agree that designing good APIs requires a great deal of work, but Sun/Oracle were not alone in doing this work. In fact, they had considerable help from community, competitors and customers. Java APIs are to a great degree a collaborative effort and it isn't right that Oracle should be the sole benefactor of this uncompensated work that has only made their product more valuable. If this is true for these particular APIs isn't very relevant in my view. What is relevant is that the Java platform as a whole has gained much from its community. Without the Java platform the APIs would hardly have any relevance at all.
- alok-g 7y ago
  What you are questioning then is not that whether APIs should be copyrightable or not, but rather whether Oracle solely should have a copyright over the Java APIs.
  - bborud 7y ago
    I am saying that if they want to claim ownership of something they can’t pretend the Java community didn’t contribute significantly to the development of the Java APIs. If you are asking for my opinion: extorting those who use your API is always a poor long term business decision because it proves ill faith and undermines trust. Oracle already has a problem with corporations making a conscious effort to move away from their database platforms.
burtonator 7y ago
If Oracle wins the Open Source community should adopt a new license to punitively punish companies like Oracle who abuse this system. We can adapt our license to allow anyone to use the API except if they're using API licensing themselves, at which point they would be in violation.
drallison 7y ago
The possibility that Oracle might prevail keeps me awake some nights. Oracle's "original software" is not. It is derivative of other work, for example, Smalltalk and its libraries. The idea of including explicit interface declarations with each module was, I think, introduced by the programming language SUE designed by Rick Holt. Copyright does not protect ideas; copyright can only protect the expression. And when the two are intrinsically combined, there cannot be copyright.

by jfasi 7y ago

thesausageking 7y ago

Google's argument is that it falls under fair use to do a clean room implementation of the APIs. District Judge Alsup agreed with this legal idea: "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical."

gpm 7y ago
Google has several arguments, I find most of them persuasive. The fair use one is sort of a fallback. The more immediate argument is that APIs aren't copyrightable material, since there isn't more than one way to write them. You can't write the API differently and still let existing java programs run with your standard library.
- glofish 7y ago
  They could design their own API and provide an "invisible shim" that transforms the calls to the original API into theirs.
  - gpm 7y ago
    To implement such an "invisible shim" you would still need to write the exact same API that oracle is claiming is copyrighted to let other programs build against it. It's not the internals of the functions that this case is about, it's literally about "class ArrayList { void clear() { [this part excluded from case] } ... }"
    - glofish 7y ago
      not exactly. there is a big difference between an API exposed to all other programmers in the world - versus one that is there for say compatibility. Their entire API works the same way as Java system and you program it as Java - it would be very different if say Android was programmed in Go and they had a way to translate Java programs into Go.
      - gpm 7y ago
        I assume your first post was in response to my "you can't write the API differently" paragraph. If not we are talking past eachother, sorry. If so, your followup is that focusing on Google's actions is missing the point. If there is only one (or a small number) of ways to write it then it isn't copyrighted, so Google can do literally whatever it wants. If there are many ways to write it, the argument fails, and Google taking a more minimal approach to copying it wouldn't change that (it might change the fair use analysis, but that's a separate discussion). It's more of a nitpick, but your reply also exaggerates the scope of the case. No one is arguing in this case that Google was not free to implement Android or an API in Java, they are arguing about re-implementing Java's standard library APIs. As far as this case goes I don't think there is any salient distinction between implementing android in Go, and implementing android in Java with a different standard library api.
tenebrisalietum 7y ago
The whole PC industry was deeply affected, in a positive manner for consumers, in a negative manner for IBM, by Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS ROM API. Imagine if users of BIOS/UEFI API had to pay royalties to IBM (which derived it from CP/M).
- hollerith 7y ago
  >Imagine if users of BIOS/UEFI API had to pay royalties I always thought that every PC maker did have to pay royalties to Phoenix or one of the other BIOS vendors. I know that open-source BIOSes, e.g., coreboot (formerly known as LinuxBIOS), exist, but I got the impression that even at this late stage in the BIOS game, only a minority of machines ship with them. I always thought that Compaq created its clean-room implementation because IBM outright refused to license their BIOS (to Compaq or anyone else).
  - jpollock 7y ago
    Let's rephrase... Imagine a world where Compaq was unable to create a cleanroom implementation of IBM's BIOS because that involved re-implementing the copyrighted APIs.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - all2 7y ago
    Where I work we have a line item for every computer we make for a BIOS royalty. So this happens at least sometimes.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      On the copyright of the actual software by Phoenix or Award or whoever, not an API licensing fee.
  - simcop2387 7y ago
    that's the difference though, theyrr free to make one or use any of the existing ones with the conditions of the authors. they're not forbidden to make their own or use a competitor's like the oracle ruling could otherwise mean.
saghm 7y ago
That was only after the appeals court stuck down Alsup's previous ruling that APIs couldn't be copyrighted and sent the issue back down to him to determine whether it was fair use.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

My understanding is that this case has produced emails inside Google about essentially how to avoid licensing Java. In the light of the incredible profit machine Google is, and how large a monopoly Android is, its hard to imagine any judge looking favorably on a plan to avoid paying licensing for something to build a multi-billion dollar industry. That being said, I feel ruling against Oracle would be also very perilous for open software from for profit entities, as it would have a harmful chilling effect on companies trying to dual license or keep their technology open. Arguments Google had made in earlier stages used the GPL-licensed OpenJDK to justify using their non-GPL implementation.

lostmsu 7y ago
It is kinda interesting, that if Oracle wins this, then Google, and specifically Android will effectively become GPL-infringers.
- alok-g 7y ago
  I believe there's more. Oracle had specific clauses in the licence terms to prevent usage of JVM on mobile. In other words, Google actually releasing Android under GPL is not enough for the case to be finished off.
danShumway 7y ago
I don't get this perspective. The Open Source movement relies on adversarial operability far more than for-profit entities do. Would WINE be legal if Oracle won? Would Oracle's OpenOffice be able to read and save Microsoft document formats? Replicating APIs has always been a huge part of the Open Source movement.
- gpm 7y ago
  The Wine case is particularly amusing, because WSL (v1) would be equally infringing in the exact opposite direction.
  - deleted 7y ago

danShumway 7y ago

We have precedent that game mechanics can't be copyrighted -- they get classified as "inventions" and have to be patented instead. Obviously IANAL, but to me as a game designer, mechanics aren't any less creative work than narrative. In fact, I'm spending more of my creative energy on mechanics than I am on story. So the lines to me just seem incredibly arbitrary, or at least I don't understand the legal differences well enough to figure out intuitively where they lie. I am incredibly grateful that game mechanics can't be copyrighted, but game mechanics don't feel like inventions to me. A game mechanic is how I express an idea. I tried to make a prediction about which way this would go, and I genuinely don't know -- not even that my prediction is uncertain, I don't feel like I know enough to even make a prediction at all. It does make me nervous. I think it's important that the Supreme Court hear it, and I'm glad they agreed to, but it would be utterly disastrous if this got decided in Oracle's favor. My (perhaps incorrect) impression is that the Supreme Court is not particularly fond of the 9th, and have something of a history of slapping down attempts at copyright expansion. A ruling against Oracle would be fantastic, and would maybe even open the door for talking about blocking copyright on grounds of compatibility. I guess I'm just nervous because it feels like the stakes are really high. At this point, there's nothing really that people like me can do, right? It's just up to Oracle and Google's lawyers?

twright 7y ago
> At this point, there's nothing really that people like me can do, right? It's just up to Oracle and Google's lawyers? Yes, with regard to this case, there’s nothing we can do at this point. In the longer term, it’s up to law makers on the state and federal level to address shortcomings and expansions of copyright law. So vote! (Or, I guess if you are particularly wealthy, lobby!)
dragonwriter 7y ago
You, or an industry group you are part of, could file an amicus brief, but, yeah, there's not a lot.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  You could also try to get your company to file an amicus brief as well.

monocasa 7y ago

Taking time and energy doesn't define copyright. There's tons of acts that take time and energy, and don't grant you a century long government backed monopoly on anything almost like it. For instance, recipes, and tables of contents aren't copyrightable. Going into case law, Sony v Bleem made it pretty clear that clean room reimplementations of APIs are on the table. Going into US code, the otherwise crappy DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering for interoperability. ie. interoperability even when the original vendor won't even tell you what the API is. Going into practicalities, who owns SQL? Who owns POSIX? The entire idea that APIs can have copyright is blatantly in contrast to decades of law, and is only happening because the CAFC is going off on it's own and ignoring 9th circuit precedent.

tzs 7y ago
> Taking time and energy doesn't define copyright For those who would like more detail on this, the major case on this in the US is Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) [1]. This is not necessarily the case in other countries. See [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
matheusmoreira 7y ago
> Going into case law, Sony v Bleem made it pretty clear that clean room reimplementations of APIs are on the table. Sony sued Bleem because of screenshots. The legality of compatible products such as emulators was not evaluated by the court. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11837224078052556056 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=118372240780525... > The legality of the emulator is not at issue in this lawsuit. > The issue in this appeal is the validity of the method by which Bleem is advertising its product. > In various advertising media, Bleem has included comparative "screen shots" of Sony PlayStation games. > We conclude that it is a fair use for Bleem to advertise comparatively only between what PlayStation games actually look like on a television and what they actually look like on a computer when played with the emulator.

eqvinox 7y ago

> From a purely technical point of view, The technical point of view needs to be combined with the legal one here, and — > 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. just because something takes a lot of work, that doesn't automatically mean it is copyrightable. An API doesn't implement anything, it describes a function. Even if it describes a lot of functions and they mesh together really well, there's a distinction between "what" a program does and "how" a program does something. To compare with literature copyright, there are a ton of romance novels out there — pretty sure you can find a lot of common patterns on "what" story they tell. However, only the "how" is copyrighted, you can't prevent anyone from writing a story with the same outline as an existing one. (For literature, the problem becomes really tricky since the crossing over from "what" to "how" is kinda fluid; e.g. you can't just swap out character names. Software is actually easier there.)

marcoseliziario 7y ago
Exactly. An implementation of an API is copyrightable. Not the API itself. With a lot of goodwill, with some very generous interpretation, an API could be patentable, but copyrightable seems absurd to me.
smadurange 7y ago
I don't think the comparison with literature makes sense. API is what defines a software. For instance, if someone copies Microsoft suite full public interface (including the UI which is part of the interface it would be a problem even if the implementation was different). API signature is the UI equivalent for a library/programming interface software. So, I agree with the original commentors concerns here. Oracle's got a point too.
- eqvinox 7y ago
  > API signature is the UI equivalent for a library/programming interface software. It isn't. "A main window with toolbars and an edit area." is the equivalent of the API signature. The layout, icons, ordering, etc. is artistic work of the "how" and copyrightable. (FWIW by your logic, LibreOffice would be violating Microsoft's copyright already and we could only ever have one office suite in the world.)

abledon 7y ago

Wasn't there some judge a couple years back who , in order to understand a case properly, taught himself java ?

gumby 7y ago
The very same judge, Alsup, whose ruling was overturned, hence this Hail Mary/saving throw to the Supreme Court.
elygre 7y ago
I wonder how he deals with medical malpractice cases.

jcranmer 7y ago

If you read the amici briefs, some of the people who actually wrote that API are explicitly disagreeing with Oracle's position.

bondolo 7y ago
This would seem to call in to question their being "friends of the court" rather than associated with a particular litigant, especially in the cases where they chose to also work for Google and likely have an a interest in the outcome of this specific case. As opposed to legitimate amici who are generally more concerned with the precedent.
- zucker42 7y ago
  If you're talking about the 78 programmer amici brief, only 12 have any connection at all to Google (only 5 are employees), and each of those are affected personally, beyond association with Google. This is addressed directly in the brief. Also when the commenter said "wrote the API", he was referring to the Oracle/Sun Java API, not the Google Android API.

wyldfire 7y ago

> 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 This is not merely a technical benefit, it's a practical one and represents the status quo. The fact that there's no precedent isn't because it's new, it's because no one ever thought it was infringing before.

Spivak 7y ago
Nobody might believe that such a thing is infringing but there are plenty of people who are mad that a competitor just copies and pastes their API. Smartcar was such a case that made it to HN. I really do think the determination for this case ought to be if you copy an API to facilitate interaction with existing software then you should be in the clear. If you do the same because it’s easier than coming up with your own then I think it should be infringement.

zmmmmm 7y ago

I don't think it's actually about that. APIs are facts, and facts are not copyrightable. How is an API a fact? You have a system, in the real world. It is a "thing". There are facts about this thing: if you send it particular bytes, it does X, if you send other bytes, it does Y. The fact that it does this is empirically derived. There are not two or more options for it, it's like gravity or electromagnetism. APIs are facts about the systems they apply to, so while there is creativity in designing them, there is no creativity in building a system that interacts with them. There is exactly one way derived from the empirical fact of how it works. Where the case IS weak is that there IS creativity in how you document and organise the API. And I'm pretty sure Google's re-implementation was very similarly organised to the real Java. That will be the crack Oracle will be trying to exploit here. But its not actually about the original work being "original" or even "creative".

jrochkind1 7y ago

In general, the amount of time/energy/cost invested in something is not a prime indicator of whether it is copyrightable, under the law. This is a misconception. Facts are not copyrightable no matter how much time/energy/cost went into compiling them, and this is clearly established law. Google's case is that an API specification or implementation is more like a set of facts. Which as a software engineer, seems pretty plausible to me, they do seem like a set of facts, a description of fact about how software works. On the other hand, unlike facts, they were not purely observed, but were indeed invented by humans -- but recipes aren't copyrightable either, even though they are not observed but invented too. Neither are the rules of a game. These are all considered more like 'facts' than creative works. Doesn't matter if eg you spent years and millions of dollars researching food chemistry to make your recipe. I don't think its entirely clear who will win, but I don't think Google's case is as weak as you think, although i agree that Oracle's contention isn't entirely off base. . In particular, in general, how much time and energy went into making something is not generally one of the most significant factors in determining copyright or fair use. (Additionally, the well-established law around reverse engineering and creating clones -- that it is allowed -- is in Google's favor, as that analogy seems pretty strong too). Copyright law is -- has always been, or at least for 100 years -- about a bunch of competing factors balanced against each other. And when it comes to technology advances, has always relied on analogies to previous technologies and industries, and who has the most persuasive analogy. And then we have the fact that the people deciding what analogy applies best may not entirely understand the technology as a social fact...

bborud 7y ago

I don't agree with your argument. I agree that designing good APIs requires a great deal of work, but Sun/Oracle were not alone in doing this work. In fact, they had considerable help from community, competitors and customers. Java APIs are to a great degree a collaborative effort and it isn't right that Oracle should be the sole benefactor of this uncompensated work that has only made their product more valuable. If this is true for these particular APIs isn't very relevant in my view. What is relevant is that the Java platform as a whole has gained much from its community. Without the Java platform the APIs would hardly have any relevance at all.

alok-g 7y ago
What you are questioning then is not that whether APIs should be copyrightable or not, but rather whether Oracle solely should have a copyright over the Java APIs.
- bborud 7y ago
  I am saying that if they want to claim ownership of something they can’t pretend the Java community didn’t contribute significantly to the development of the Java APIs. If you are asking for my opinion: extorting those who use your API is always a poor long term business decision because it proves ill faith and undermines trust. Oracle already has a problem with corporations making a conscious effort to move away from their database platforms.

burtonator 7y ago

If Oracle wins the Open Source community should adopt a new license to punitively punish companies like Oracle who abuse this system. We can adapt our license to allow anyone to use the API except if they're using API licensing themselves, at which point they would be in violation.

drallison 7y ago

The possibility that Oracle might prevail keeps me awake some nights. Oracle's "original software" is not. It is derivative of other work, for example, Smalltalk and its libraries. The idea of including explicit interface declarations with each module was, I think, introduced by the programming language SUE designed by Rick Holt. Copyright does not protect ideas; copyright can only protect the expression. And when the two are intrinsically combined, there cannot be copyright.