Judge Rules API's Can Not Be Copyrighted

Asmodae writes "Judge Alsup in the Oracle vs Google case has finally issued his ruling on the issue of whether or not APIs can be copyrighted. That ruling is resounding no. In some fairly clear language the judge says: '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.'"

Comments

Good to Know

[Jorl17]

Wine's safe. And everything else associated with it.

Re:Good to Know

[sribe]

And, of course, Oracle has been handed their balls on a platter, though I'm assuming they will appeal this.

The judge has clearly anticipated the appeal, even devoting an entire section to explaining how utterly trivial the 9 lines of actually copied code are, and to describing, for the benefit of an appeals court, how ridiculously Oracle has exaggerated the claims around them--remember Oracle tried to claim that by copying the 9-line (including closing braces) implementation of rangeCheck, Google was able to bring Android to market sooner. Goddamned fools.

Re:Good to Know

[Teancum]

This ruling and opinion looks very water tight. If it goes up through the appeals process, I think it is likely to be affirmed the whole way up the food chain.

The ruling goes way beyond even settling the issue of copyright over APIs, but even goes so far as to say that EULAs that restrict the use of APIs are dead in the water and are void in terms of enforceability. This ruling does strengthen the copyright claims of people who write up API libraries as the original implementation of a particular API function is expressly covered under copyright law, but the way data is passed between two different software packages simply can't be copyrighted at all.

The only way this is going to be overturned is to place a stamp of copyright protection on API interfaces directly and hand this whole case to Oracle, giving them everything they ever wanted and more. I just don't see any higher court will do something like that.

Re:Good to Know

[The1stImmortal]

On the other hand, the EU has had a hard time finding a position on software patents, and the key difference is that copyright is automatic, patents have a specific set of conditions to be granted and go through a review process (even if it's not a terribly *good* review process)

Permitting the *automatic* granting of monopolies on ideas would be a disaster

Re:Good to Know

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps Google just temporarily amended "Don't Be Evil" to "The End Justifies The Means" and bribed the everloving fuck out of this particular judge?

i do wonder how the system works, but in this case i think the judge just rightly saw that Oracle's case was ridiculous and dangerous (including to themselves) and would likely be turned over on appeal anyway.

There's a good chunk of the legal back and forth over at groklaw if you're interested. I spent probably a good hour reading testimonies just for fun. Turns out, the judge was competent, and the claims Oracle were making made perfect sense, but only to themselves.

Re:Good to Know

[ppanon]

Mostly. If you read the judge's ruling (and the observations thereof on Groklaw), the judge makes it clear that this applies to the Java API SSO because the java package SSO is essential to method invocation. (i.e. you need to import java.lang.String to access the string methods or need to explicitly invoke the class methods using the full package hierarchical path). The judge leaves open the possibility that an API's SSO would be copyrightable in a language where conforming to that SSO was not required for API interoperability, where the SSO was expressive only and not functional in any way.

Re:Good to Know

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. It's important to notice that the judge did *NOT* rule that APIs couldn't be copyrighted. He was VERY careful to say:

This order does not hold that Java API packages are free to use without license. It does not hold that the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be stolen. Rather, it holds on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act.

His ruling is VERY specific to Google's use of Java and is NOT a blanket declaration about copyright of APIs.

It's possible that in a future court case a different judge might take this ruling and turn it into a ruling that applies ot all APIs, but that's not what this ruling does.

Re:Good to Know

[hazem]

It's widely recognised legally that awarding a patent IS giving a monopoly on the use of an idea

I was under the impression that a patent cannot be used for an idea, but the specific implementation of an idea. You could get a patent for inventing a hoverboard that is powered by anti-gravitons and I wouldn't be in violation of your patent if I invented one that is powered by the hearts of orphan children, even if they looked essentially the same and behaved the same. They're the same idea, a board that can hover in the air, but different implementations.

Decimated

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word "decimated".

Re:The Judge gets it

[shutdown -p now]

The entire summary of ruling is worth reading - it lays it out concisely yet clearly.

SUMMARY OF RULING

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. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.

It is true that the very same functionality could have been offered in Android without duplicating the exact command structure used in Java. This could have been done by re-arranging the various methods under different groupings among the various classes and packages (even if the same names had been used). In this sense, there were many ways to group the methods yet still duplicate the same range of functionality.

But the names are more than just names — they are symbols in a command structure wherein the commands take the form

java.package.Class.method()

Each command calls into action a pre-assigned function. The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability.

So; API is a "system of method of operation", and hence non-copyrightable.

Re:The question still to be answered

[SEE]

ABIs were already decided in Connectix v. Sony, I believe, which Google included in a brief in this case.