Oracle Vs. Google and the Right To Use APIs

jfruh writes "Even as an EU court rules that APIs can't be copyrighted, tech observers are waiting for the Oracle v. Google trial jury to rule on the same question under U.S. law. Blogger Brian Proffitt spoke with Groklaw's Pamela Jones on the issue, and her take is that a victory for Oracle would be bad news for developers. Essentially, Oracle is claiming that, while an individual API might not be copyrightable, the collection of APIs needed to use a language is. Such a decision would, among other things, make Java's open source nature essentially meaningless, and would have lots of implications for any programming language you can name."

Comments

hope we luck out

[Eponymous Hero]

the rest of us who know what we're talking about have to sit around and wait for outsider judges and juries to decide the context of things far outside their grasp. it takes years for an engineer to become competent in these technologies, and now we have bus drivers and secretaries deciding what applies to us and our trade in the span of mere weeks. can we get specialized jury selection for cases involving specialized knowledge?

Re:hope we luck out

[Anonymous Coward]

The expert knowledge in the case is supposed to come from the expert witnesses.

You don't really want the jurors to be too deep in the field; in particular, you don't want the jurors to be privately disagreeing with the explanations of the expert witness.
Why? Because the jurors are not examined. An "expert juror" could decide the case based on a prejudice that is never heard in court, and neither of the sides get the opportunity to challenge. A jury with few preconceptions is good for transparency.

Besides, how likely is it that such a jury would be unbiased? Would they rule against Google despite the implications for IT if Oracle wins?

Re:Can search results be copyrighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a certain amount of irony here, considering your username. An API is an interface to use something. Search results are the product of its use. There is a before-and-after, or cause-and-effect, type relationship between the two. Claiming that an API is not copyrightable has nothing to do with whether a custom, specific product produced by an API is copyrightable. It's non sequitur. Slashdot gives me an interface to type in this comment, but that does not mean that Slashdot owns what I type. One is an API to use it, and the other is the product of the API.

Your argument falls flat because it was not well constructed. Assuming it was, your second claim also falls short. Google does is not required to allow bots to use their services. Complaining that bots are being blocked doesn't hold weight. Claiming that it's a double standard because Google can hit your servers is irrelevant. Server owners have the ability to detect bots and prevent them from scanning their sites too. Google actually uses a specific user agent and has reverse DNS that resolves to google.com so that you know for sure that it's a Google bot scanning your site. Personally, I don't think anyone would want to prevent Google from scanning their web sites, and companies have failed because Google elects to stop scanning (delisting them). But if you wanted to, you certainly could. Google wouldn't complain.

Although your arguments are poorly constructed and contain multiple logical fallacies, your hostility against the delisting is interesting. Were you personally affected? Why would anyone really want to use a different search engine if that engine is simply going to show Google results? Where's the value add? Wouldn't it make more sense to nerdrage against Google's privacy policies, wardriving, de facto age discrimination, or something like that? Why pick bot filtering?

Judge Alsup is on it...

[sconeu]

He has asked the parties to brief him in light of the EU decision.