Google Takes the Fight With Oracle To the Supreme Court

whoever57 writes Google has asked the Supreme Court to review the issue of whether APIs can be copyrighted. Google beat Oracle in the trial court, where a judge with a software background ruled that APIs could not be copyrighted. but the Appeals court sided with Oracle, ruling that APIs can be copyrighted. Now Google is asking the Supreme Court to overturn that decision. (Also of interest.)

Comments

Oracle

[Kagetsuki]

Fuck you. You are everything wrong with the software industry.

Re:Oracle

[gstoddart]

Hmmm, as I recall, Microsoft shipped something which was so completely not Java as to be laughable.

They'd taken an existing language, which was intended to be cross platform, and injected (as they usually do) their own platform-specific functions ... and still tried to pass it off as Java.

But code written to use those extensions wouldn't run anywhere else. Which means Microsoft basically broke the language and the cross-platform intention.

The Microsoft/Java issue was about intentionally breaking compatibility by adding their own crap.

Now, contrast that to someone taking the exact same API interfaces, and implementing them properly for compatibility. Further, look at the fact that API interfaces from UNIX have been duplicated for literally decades in order to make something which uses the same interface and allows for code portability. The interface is what you publish to allow others to use it.

So, if you want consistency, you have to remember these are actually two different issues.

Microsoft didn't adhere to the published interfaces, and just decided to add their own. That was Sun's lawyers.

Now, Oracle is saying "you can't copy our API interface because it's super secret and copyrighted". This is Oracle's lawyers.

Google is saying "you're idiots, this is how programming has worked for decades".

So, we agree you should be able to adhere to the API interface for compatibility sake. We also don't think you should be doing what Microsoft did, and do their usual "embrace/extend/extinguish" crap.

And when they got told they weren't allowed to embrace and extend, they dropped it altogether and came out with .NET.

Oracle is actually making a different argument than Sun was at the time.

Re:Oracle

[TheSunborn]

Nobody ever said that Microsoft could not ship their own version of the JRE, and Microsoft newer made their own JRE.

Microsoft distributed a modified version of suns jre, based on source code licensed from Sun. And it was sourcecode licerse, which gave Microsoft problems. If they had just made their own jre, anything would have been fine(Except for the fact that they might not have called it Java(tm)

Re:Oracle

[Charliemopps]

I'm trying to recall slashdot's reaction about a decade ago when the courts said that Microsoft couldn't ship their own version of the JRE with windows to run java applications.

I think it was lauded as crushing anti-competitive behavior. How is Google shipping their own custom JRE on phones they control 70% of the market for that different? I mean other than that they won't let you override the install with the Oracle version?

I agree that Oracle can die in a fire, and I will not shed a single tear, but for consistency's sake, is there something different here?

Yea, it's amazing how the public sides with the company that isn't trying to screw them at every turn.
Google is generally nice to us...
Microsoft and Oracle are about the biggest Jerks in tech...
Funny how that works, eh?

A similar situation:
I hate you because you slept with my wife, and you snag a beer our of my fridge? My reaction would be?
You just gave me a ride home after my car broken down, and you snag a beer our of the fridge. My reaction again?

Is that a double standard?

Re: Oracle

[Zombywuf]

You mean where Google comes along, does a ton of work, and for some reason doesn't think it should have to pay someone else for the work they did?

Seems completely fair to me.

Re: Oracle

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting that Sun Microsystems was responsible for Java, and google went ahead on Android with Sun's blessing. Only aftrer Orcale bought them out did this animosity start.

Java was open sourced. You cannot retroactively change your mind if you become bitter that somebody built something really great with it and is being rewarded for it. That's the point of such licenses. Nobody would trust open source otherwise.

Re: Oracle

[ShanghaiBill]

Do you think that's fair, or legal?

Yes. The purpose of copyright is to protect creativity, not work. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine has been rejected by the US Supreme Court. The creativity should be what lies behind the API, not the API itself. The API itself allows for NO creativity, since even the slightest deviation causes it to fail. Therefore APIs should not be copyrightable. Furthermore, there is a compelling public interest in a competitive market for software, and locked down APIs are a hindrance to that.

this aught to be a riot.

[nimbius]

Sonia Sotomayor: isnt...didnt steve jobs invent API's when he did the iPod?
Stephen G. Breyer: im pretty sure its bread...ive had an API before and it gave me horrible gas.
Samuel A. Alito: no guys seriously its Oracle this is about religion. the API is like a god, but also a man i think.
Elena Kagan: I believe API is the knob on the old chairs that used to control that horrible frontward tilt feature we all hated. Oracle owns that?
Clarence Thomas:: zzzZZZZzzzzzZZZZzzzz
Antonin Scalia: It should be outlawed. these damn hooligans play their API at four in the morning and I hate rap bands.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts: I dont know about you guys but I rather liked the front tilty chairs...just sayin'
Anthony Kennedy: does everyone get an API or just some people. does this disenfranchise minorities or is there an API for everyone?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Youre all wrong. I just had the API serviced in my mercedes benz last month. im pretty sure its the part that works with the seat warmer or cooler or something.

Oracle trying to undo the GPL decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle are clearly trying to pull Java back from public domain and back to within Oracles control to undo the GPL license Java is under. It's a clever lawyer trick, but Java itself uses copyrighted APIs.

Java was not the first to use Vector, or String classes or Views or any other API and classes it built on. It would be difficult to even identify which *names* of classes are actually new APIs and which are copied from others.

In Oracle's mind, it thinks if it can get away with this is can seize Android, which contains a Java compatible API named set, even though it doesn't use Java and the code is not theirs. But that API set is itself copied from many previous products.

Why do we have trademarks if you can copyright the name of something? (Which is what an API is, its the names of the methods).

A few huge differences

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The don't use the Java brand and don't call it Java.
2. Its not based on Sun/Oracle sources and relies on a clean room implementation
3. Google didn't sign a licensing contract then violate it like MS did.

17 USC 102(b)

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain how it's not a slam-dunk argument that APIs fall under the scope limitation of 17 USC 102(b)? Isn't that a key underpinning of decades of case law on very nearly this exact subject (Computer Associates v. Altai, Lotus v. Borland, Sega v. Accolade, Sony v. Connectix)?

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

If Oracle wins, Bell Labs owns the world.

[emil]

The full source code of the UNIX v6 kernel, as published in the Lions commentary, bore prominent copyright notices from AT&T Bell Labs.

If the system call and C library API interface is thus still owned by Bell Labs, then that covers Oracle Linux, the POSIX standard, commercial UNIX, as well as all the phones (including QNX), routers, UNIX/Linux/BSD servers/workstations, and likely much more.

Oracle had better pray that they lose.

Re:If Oracle wins, Bell Labs owns the world.

[Forever Wondering]

The AT&T copyrights were the genesis of POSIX. Nobody could create a workalike Un*x, so POSIX was originally a "clean room" reimplementation of the Un*x API's [libc, programs, et. al.]. POSIX now serves as a standard, but that wasn't its original purpose.

Because the POSIX methodology has been around for 30 years, it provides some precedent/defense for Google [estoppel].

If Oracle's argument prevails, this kills all Linux, *BSD [OSX] workalike OSes. Also, because ISO copyrights the C/C++ specs [to charge a fee to have a copy], this means that nobody could program in C/C++ without a license from ISO.

The Oracle/Google decision by the appellate court is tantamount to conferring patent protections for a copyright. That is, because Louis L'Amour copyrighted his western novels, nobody else can pen a western.

Predictions are hard

[CauseBy]

It's hard to decide how the SCUSA would rule in this case because it is two big corporations fighting. If it were a corporation versus a human being then it would be an easy decision for the SCUSA, but I don't think five of those nine Justices have any compass for how to rule in cases between two corporations.

It'll be really confusing for them. Imagine the conversation:

Roberts: "Hey, Thomas, how are you going to vote?"
Thomas: "I don't know, Johnny. I read the briefs and shat my pants when I saw that both litigants were corporations."
Scalia: "Me too. I even asked both sides if maybe they were not a corporation, to simplify things, but it seems like they really are both corporations."
Roberts: "Yeah I'm flummoxed. There's just no way to decide."
Alito: "Maybe one of them is a small corporation? Then we could just round them down to 'human' and rule against them."
Roberts: "No such luck. These are both huge corporations."
Kennedy: "Hey, guys, I'm thinking maybe we could decide the case based on legal principles."
Roberts: ...
Scalia: ...
Alito: "I don't get it. Legal principles? You mean like, we should check the documents of incorporation to see whether they are real corporations?"
Kennedy: "No, I mean like, we should decide the case based on what the law says, and based on previous legal decisions in American courts."
Roberts: ...
Scalia: ...
Alito: "I still don't get it. What does the law have to do with it?"
Thomas: "Yeah, seriously Kennedy, we let you screw up the DOMA decision and we're not going to let you do it again. Is this 'API' thing religious? Maybe we could rule in favor of religion, if the other corporation is atheist."
Alito: "No, apparently it's some kind of computery thing. I don't really know, I was doing a Sudoku during arguments."
Roberts: "Look, maybe we should just defer to the appellate court."
Scalia: "But the appellate court ruled against a corporation!"
Roberts: "Yeah but they also ruled for a corporation."
Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito: heads physically explode.
Kennedy: "Ah, sheesh, they got blood on my robe."
Ginsberg: "Anthony, come over here, maybe you can help Sonya and I write a decision."
Kennedy: "I guess so, but your lap isn't as comfortable as Scalia's. Will you scratch me behind my ear?"
Ginsberg: "I'll scratch you behind your ear but you have to promise to stop mentioning legal principles in front of the conservatives."

 

Re:You can copyright maps and manuals

[reebmmm]

Patent/IP Attorney chiming in.

You can copyright maps and manuals

Sure. You're very specific expression of both. You don't get to copyright the "facts" in either case. Everyone is free to copy the factual aspects of both maps and manuals. The distinction is an important one. And while not addressing maps and manuals directly in their petition, Google takes on the concept: you can write a book about art, but you don't get to stop other people from doing that art.

You can draw (and potentially get a copyright for) an outline of the world, but you can't stop other people from doing the same.

Google's argument about the API isn't all that much different: you can copyright an implementation of the API, but you don't get a copyright for the "facts" of the API: function names, arrangement, etc. The argument is that copyright, by statute, expressly does not extend to "extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (17 USC 102(b)). This is not a trivial argument. It's also pretty important because if Oracle/Federal Circuit are correct, then you can have de facto patent protection for a century without any of the procedural protections such as examination.