Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Denies Google's Request To Appeal Oracle API Case
New submitter Neil_Brown writes: The Supreme Court of the United States has today denied Google's request to appeal against the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling (PDF) that the structure, sequence and organization of 37 of Oracle's APIs (application program interfaces) was capable of copyright protection. The case is not over, as Google can now seek to argue that, despite the APIs being restricted by copyright, its handling amounts to "fair use". Professor Pamela Samuelson has previously commented (PDF) on the implications if SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal. The Verge reports: "A district court ruled in Google's favor back in 2012, calling the API "a utilitarian and functional set of symbols" that couldn't be tied up by copyrights. Last May, a federal appeals court overturned that ruling by calling the Java API copyrightable. However, the court said that Google could still have lawfully used the APIs under fair use, sending the case back to a lower court to argue the issue. That's where Google will have to go next, now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear the issue over copyright itself.
> Google illegally copied Oracle's shit. Deal with it.
This would make sense to anybody who has never done any actual programming.
A function name and parameter spec is now "someone's shit"? Oracle's position is about as sensible as SCO's was.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Actually, he might have a valid point. If an api is subject to copyright, wouldn't that make a whole bunch of closed source things in violation of the gpl? For example, the closed source nvidia drivers include some of the kernel api, so are they now subject to gpl?
So ... basically every modern implementation of C illegally copied AT&T's or K&R's shit?
Mono has illegally copied Microsoft's shit?
The API is a contract, which you publish in order to allow people to use it. But you specifically do publish it.
Java was released by Sun without licensing, just saying you needed to be compatible with the core and not screw things up -- and now retroactively Oracle can claim copyright on it? There sure as hell were other implementations of Java out there which nobody was complaining about.
That pretty much sounds like bullshit. Interoperability is part of fair use. Have we so thoroughly eroded this concept that the copyright lawyers have won?
I'm pretty sure at the time Google was copying those interfaces, not a damned person EVER suggested this required licensing.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Call me a pedant, but
> copied shit exactly
Android Inc didn't copy/paste shit; that would be exactly. They built their own VM that runs the same bytecode compile-able from the same source that's freely available all over this mess of the internet. See OpenJDK.
they copied the structure, not the code.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Actually, he might have a valid point. If an api is subject to copyright, wouldn't that make a whole bunch of closed source things in violation of the gpl? For example, the closed source nvidia drivers include some of the kernel api, so are they now subject to gpl?
I suspect that (1) there is a license allowing the inclusion of header files, for example the GPL license terms might allow this, (2) NVidia is merely using, but not copying the header files (unlike Google), and (3) if someone insisted that NVidia can't include kernel header files to build its drivers, then instead of a GPL'd driver Linux users will end up with no driver. And if the same thing happens with ARM / AMD, then good night Linux.
That would be sufficient to make the APIs stop working. Perhaps you should think again about what information is required and copyrightable.
I think that this decision may mean that Google will need to do something like alphabetize the API. (Customized organization can be copyrighted, but alphabetical order can't.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And yet something written against the Java API can fairly trivially be made to work against the Google API -- well, in theory.
The interfaces for APIs have been borrowed and re-implemented for literally decades. If you retroactively go back and say all of them are licensed and you need to pay money ... you fuck up the entirety of computing history.
Like I said, the standard C library, most of POSIX, the C++ template libraries, Mono ... all sorts of stuff was basically a re-implementation of an API.
This ruling completely ignores several decades worth of precedent, and grants Oracle something nobody else has ever had.
Hell, even Microsoft's vaporware to provide Android support is covered by this. This has very far reaching implications, and makes no sense in the context of computers since the 70s.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Fucking lawyers just never stop.
Google illegally copied Oracle's shit. Deal with it.
The 13 words in your post are currently under copyright protection and owned by me.
(As symbols required for interaction are now copyrightable, aka APIs, aka all words in a language)
You can paypal my $10000 per word usage licensing fee and I will refrain from opening a lawsuit against you.
As you say, pay up and deal with it.
and what if Oracle buys Novell?
So, what exactly does this do to the Open Source movement?
It was my understanding that Java had been open sourced and that made what Android did allowable, and long as the open source agreement lived on is Androids code
Now we see Oracle applying copyright law to Java...
So... did Oracle remove Java from open source?
Are the parts of Java that Oracle claims copyright over not open source?
Has Open Source just been ignored (and invalidated) by the federal court system?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Correct. And _unfortunately_ structure is very much copyrightable. I personally thought that the trial court's opinion which found for Google very strong and persuasive. But anybody who actually knows copyright law knows that the trial court was going out on a limb, and it should surprise _nobody_ that he was overturned on appeal, and that SCOTUS declined to come to his rescue.
Look, you guys need to stop listening to people who work at the Harvard Berkman Center, or similar FOSS advocates with law degrees. We should all _hope_ that their arguments will become the law of the land some day. But their interpretations of copyright law are sadly far from the mainstream. They make it sound like their arguments are slam dunks, but remember that they're lawyers! Worse, they're legal academics! Their whole purpose in life is to persuade people to adopt their perspectives, and what better way to do that than tell people flat out that their perspective is obvious, intuitive, and uncontroversial.
Hopefully Google will still win on Fair Use. It would have been much better if the appeals courts held that APIs were simply not copyrightable. But the fact of the matter is that such a ruling would have been a significant change in copyright law. The appeals courts weren't persuaded to take that step. Them doing so was made less likely by the fact that Fair Use provides a convenient way for courts to mitigate the impact of strong copyright law in narrow cases. So, for example, if they had held that the structure of code and APIs was not copyrightable, it would have had far reaching implications for other fields, like music, film, etc. IMO that would have been a good thing, but the appeals courts didn't want to rock the boat. A Fair Use exception will allow them (if they choose) to effectively exclude APIs without threatening to upturn industry expectations generally.
That would be sufficient to make the APIs stop working. Perhaps you should think again about what information is required and copyrightable.
I think that this decision may mean that Google will need to do something like alphabetize the API. (Customized organization can be copyrighted, but alphabetical order can't.)
Nah, I'm pretty sure Google will win the case against Oracle. There are at least two more defenses they can fall back on.
First, exactly what the summary mentioned: Fair Use. Fair Use is complicated and there are multiple factors to consider but courts generally come down strongest on the economic questions, and there the question is whether Google's action devalued Oracle's property. Speculatively, suppose that Google had had to create its own set of APIs. They could absolutely have been modeled on the Java APIs, but would need to use different names, etc. Google could well have taken the opportunity to clean up a lot of crufty corners of the Java APIs. This would have been a significant undertaking for Google, but wouldn't have been prohibitive by any means. Not doing it saved Google money, but the more interesting question is what was the impact on Java?
I think Google has a really compelling argument that using the Java APIs in what has become the world's dominant personal computing platform's primary development toolset has increased the value of the Java APIs. Although Java was originally built with embedded and mobile devices in mind, without Android it would likely be relegated to being a big systems application language only.
There are probably other Fair Use angles to attack, but that's the one that jumps out at me.
The second defense, and one that seems absolutely deadly to Oracle's claims, is promissory estoppel. Google very much had Sun's approval and cooperation when they decided to use the Java APIs for Android, so it's really nasty of Oracle to try to take that back now, and courts don't buy it.
It would have been better if Google could have established the general principle that APIs are not copyrightable. They shouldn't be, and establishing that would be good for the whole software industry. Barring that, the Fair Use defense could establish a precedent that is almost as good. The estoppel argument solves Google's problem but doesn't do anything to make the industry better.
My position on copyrights and patents was always the same: abolish all patents and copyrights and prevent government from providing monopolies with these laws.
Basically this is nearly the ultimate absurd result that we are seeing here and it probably can even get worse. You want to build a road somewhere? Well, you are violating a copyright on other people building horizontal surfaces to allow circular wheels (and legs I suppose) to run on them. You want to build a house? Are you going to have a roof? Foundation? Walls? Windows? Doors? Fucking copyright violator. Absurd, isn't it? Or is it really absurd to expect that ruling like that can actually be passed given the fact that it is a government entity that can pass that ruling and given that governments are already given authority to rule on these issues?
No, the real solution is not even about money exchanging hands (though I wouldn't be surprised in case of Oracle), it is about the power that governments have over our heads, and this power is as insane as it is absurd.
No company or person should be given government protected monopoly on anything, including any invention, copyright, whatever. That's not how evolution works, that's not how cultures worked and still keep working. That type of power is destructive, not constructive in any way. Let the people and companies decide how to provide their services and products in a world that does not automatically protect them from any type of competition. At the very least this cannot be a power granted to government, deal with these issues on contract basis and using trade secrets if you must.
Anyway, I can only leave 1 or 2 comments here now given that 24 hours passed since my account's 'karma' was obliterated again by moderators who want to make sure I cannot reply to comments made to me, so don't expect many comments here either.
You can't handle the truth.
Actually, he might have a valid point. If an api is subject to copyright, wouldn't that make a whole bunch of closed source things in violation of the gpl? For example, the closed source nvidia drivers include some of the kernel api, so are they now subject to gpl?
He may have a valid point regarding Java itself and its usage for Google on Android; however, that doesn't typically extend.
Also, there is sufficient legal precedent regarding C/C++ header files not being copyrightable such that nVidia need not concern themselves. This would really only affect languages like Java that mix interface declarations with their implementations.
Languages that normally separate them (like C, and C++) will not likely need to worry.
Lesson: Avoid Java
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
A Fair Use exception will allow them (if they choose) to effectively exclude APIs without threatening to upturn industry expectations generally.
Unfortunately, fair use claims are judged on a case-by-case basis. Even if Google prevails on this issue, API implementation will be too risky for individual programmers or small companies to undertake.
.: Semper Absurda
I work for Google. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. We have a version of the Android framework built using C++ and Go. Since the ART VM is language agnostic the transition should be fairly smooth. Once we get all of the initial pieces of the puzzle in place we'll be transitioning to it. It won't happen in M, but will happen in N.
Mod AC up.
The trial court ruling is how things ought to be, but how things actually are is a much different story, as reflected by the CAFC and SCOTUS.
You need a vanishingly small amount of originality to meet the copyrightability threshold. Like choosing categories for yellow pages rather than listing everything alphabetically. Like selecting and arranging public domain stories. Like adding a few lines to someone else's pictures.
It's worth arguing that even by the lowest standards, the APIs do not possess even a modicum of creativity. It's also worth arguing that they are so purely functional on a basic and elementary level that they should not be afforded copyright protection at all. But since the higher court rulings force us to concede copyrightability arguments, what's left to argue is that Google's use of these validly copyrighted APIs was fair and thus permissible.
Nothing posted to
This would really only affect languages like Java that mix interface declarations with their implementations.
Languages that normally separate them (like C, and C++) will not likely need to worry.
Lesson: Avoid Java
It's only been since Java 1.8 that you've been able to inline a default implementation along with an interface declaration. Before 1.8, the only legal members of interfaces were abstract method declarations and static final constants.
One of the things that came out during the SCO mess was that SCO didn't own the Unix copyrights. Novell still had them, and Novell wasn't interested in using them to make trouble for Linux. (At least not then, anyway.)
So this ruling doesn't do SCO's pathetic "case" any good.
The C++ standard library is already licensed to the public through ISO, as are the POSIX APIs through IEEE.
It was my understanding that Java had been open sourced and that made what Android did allowable, and long as the open source agreement lived on is Androids code
The open source java, OpenJDK, is licensed basically under the GPLv2 (with the runtime classpath exception). If Google took that code and used it, they would have to put their code under the GPL. They didn't. They took the code (actually, just the API definitions) and put it under a different license. It's like taking code licensed under BSD and putting it under the GPL - unless you are the owner of the code it's a license violation and you can no longer use the code.
This lawsuite would have had no leg to stand on if Google took code from OpenJDK and used it, but they didn't. As far as I can tell, OpenJDK didn't enter into the picture at all.
Now, I still think copyrights applying to API is a terrible decision, but I just wanted to clarify the situation about OpenJDK vs Android "Open Source".
Having had personal technical experience with both Java ME and Android, I gotta say that from a technology point of view, Java ME was a complete and total dead-end. It was far, far different from vanilla desktop/server java than Android is and therefore had practically zero notice or integration with the Java ecosystem. It was designed to work within the restrictions of devices that had single or double-digit CPU MHz and RAM MBs. It was modelled around Java 1.1, with almost no new language features or APIs. RIM used it as the basis for Blackberry and as a developer, I can tell you it was a decision they regretted.
Android is essentially vanilla Java with only the most esoteric of APIs removed from it, and then device-specific APIs placed on top of it. You can use 95% of existing java desktop/server libraries without any modification. If Google was given the option of using Java ME absolutely for free, or developing their own language and APIs, I guarantee they would have made their own because there would have been a riot among their software developers who would have been forced to essentially develop all of the libraries and google apps using the software equivalent of alphabet blocks and duplo. The additional "device profiles" that were subsequently released were too little, too late and hardly any of them were adopted into devices. I can't imagine any situation where Google would have paid Sun or Oracle for a Java ME license.
They did copy and paste 37 lines of code, the rangecheck function. The court ruled it diminimus and therefore non-infringing. So, Oracle's lawyers took another tact.
They claimed that this copying gave Google a big advantage and allowed them to get to market sooner. Alsup responded to this argument with ""I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?"
Fight Spammers!
The problem is not how they are licensed (public, open source, whatever). What Oracle claim is that their copyright precludes unlicensed copies - so IEEE could require "posix certification" for all libraries implementing the POSIX API, so they could prevent glibc or any other "libc" from being distributed. That might not be a huge risk for POSIX, because of the IEEE involvement, but there are a lot of APIs out there.
Regards,
-Jeremy