Slashdot Mirror
Declaring Code Is Not Code, Says Larry Page (arstechnica.com)
Alphabet CEO Larry Page says his company never considered getting permission from Oracle for using the latter's Java APIs in Android. Page, who appeared in a federal court, said Java APIs are open and free, which warrants them or anyone to use it without explicit permission from Oracle. From an Ars Technica report (edited for clarity): "But you did copy the code and copy the structure, sequence, and organization of the APIs?" Oracle attorney Peter Bicks asked, raising his voice. "I don't agree with 'copy code,'" Page said. "For me, declaring code is not code," Page said. "Have you paid anything to Oracle for using that intellectual property?" Bicks asked. "When Sun established Java, they established it as an open source thing," Page said. "I believe the APIs we used were pretty open. No, we didn't pay for the free and open things." [...] "Was Google seeking a license for Java?" Google lawyer Robert Van Nest asked. "Yes, and a broader deal around other things, like branding and cooperation," Page said. "After discussions with Sun broke off, did you believe Google needed a license for APIs?" Van Nest asked. "No, I did not believe that," Page said. "It was established industry practice that the API and just the headers of those things could be taken and re-implemented. [It must be done] very carefully, not to use any existing implementation of those systems. That's been done many, many times. I think we acted responsibly and carefully around these intellectual property issues."
Indeed so. Software is in a whole heap of trouble of APIs are copyrighted and you have to go to court to prove whatever laughable versions of fair use is in vogue this week.
Someone should go back and look for any examples where Sun or Oracle have copied APIs but didn't have any specific license to use the code behind those APIs.
There must be some example somewhere of Sun or Oracle doing exactly what they are now claiming Google has done...
Or indeed WABI from Sun (now Oracle) that copies the API of Windows so it can run on Sparcstations.
Or Java from Oracle that implements the Berkeley Collections library APIs.
Or Java from Oracle that copies the API conventions of C++.
They really are trying to fool a jury here.
If the jury rules for Oracle, that means Microsoft will owe billions to the estate of Gary Kildall.
And IBM will be able to sue Oracle and Microsoft for billions, for Oracle's use of the SQL API .
An Ad-hoc one, but part of language nonetheless.
The ENGLISH Language has an API too. You will find much of it documented in a dictionary.
The words are the element of the language; but an API tells you how to exchange messages between two people.
Attempting to have exclusive rights to an API is like a restaurant wanting exclusive rights to phrases such as "GET WATER", or "ONE BEER PLEASE".
So patrons will be sued if they go to a competitors' restaurant and formulate requests such as that
The code does things...... the API is just a functional (non-creative) description of the correct way to interact with the code.
If Oracle wins this case and all the appeals, where it's ruled that using open APIs is copyright infringement, then I would strongly suggest you get into corporate law.
Because the end result is that basically every software company in the world (including not just Oracle and Google but Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Intel, Samsung, etc.) will suddenly find themselves in a Mexican standoff of potentially trillions of dollars in "intellectual property" suits ready to be fired off. The only winner will be the one with the best legal department; oh, and the lawyers.
All the aforementioned companies would be wise to pen amicus curiae letters in favor of Google.
According to the Federal Appeals Court-- whose opinion is the only one that matters (since the Supreme court declined the case)-- you are wrong. APIs can be copyrighted. End of discussion.
Alas, that will not stop them being wrong I'm afraid. This has also been debated, and overturned endlessly, throughout the 80s and 90s with things like DR DOS.
There are the way a bunch of lawyers would like things to be in an industry they know nothing about, and the way things actually are. You might not like that, and you might not agree, but that is neither here nor there. There is no software industry of any kind with copyrighted APIs.
Riddle me this.
Intellectual means "of the intellect" and is thus intangible.
Property has always been used as a nomer for physical items that are clearly in possession, after all possession is 9/10th of the law.
This whole "IP" terminology is thus clearly double speak, and should be avoided. The whole legal constructs around them, be it patents, invention or copyright are only there to not disrupt existing economic structures. They are a philosophical abomination, especially in the digital age, where copying is cost-less, and distribution nearly so. This is true for books, code, movies and basically everything digital IMHO, and in this case even more so.
In this particular case of Oracle vs Google regarding Java "IP" we are talking about API Headers. To anyone with some coding background, API Headers are a description of a system. They are not patentable, as patents require implementation. (In Europe software is considered "math", and atm not patentable at al) They should not be copyrightable, for the same reason that announcing you will write a book about Fire and Ice and Dragons is a description of a book, but not the book itself. This description should not grant you the right to be the sole author of books about Fire and Ice and Dragons.
I applaud Google in this fight, and I hope they fight till they win.
Organisations publish their APIs, because that want people to use them.
Sun was making a huge push on this in the early 2000s. IMO Larry Page is spot on with this.
No it hasn't, throughout the decades copyright of software has been upheld.
Yes it has. Software implementations, yes, APIs no. Not sure if you're just ignorant or are deliberately painting over that. The developer tools market is built on this and has been since the year dot.
Nah, because there is a strong interoperability defense, that allows you to copy copyrighted APIs (which is what your friend dr dos did).
Nope, because every company is now going to have to go to court to prove 'fair use'', which Oracle has made various versions of as it has gone along. If you can't prove that then there are billions in free money waiting for everyone who can claim copyright over APIs. At the time of DR DOS APIs were certainly not copyrightable and haven't been deemed to be so until recently. There is no *strong* fair use defence. That was shoehorned in when the people making the laughable ruling realised what trouble it would cause, but it creates a nice walled garden nonetheless.
1) They didn't make a clean-room copy.
Yes they did, and it's not a copy. Dalvik isn't a Java.
2) They didn't make their copy for interoperability reasons.
Yes they did. They wanted a familiar language where developers could reuse *their* code and port over. There are developer tools that have been on the market for decades that will do exactly that. Oracle's idea that because Android isn't 100% compatible with Java, and they didn't copy *all* the APIs, so therefore it can't be about interoperability is absolutely laughable.
3) They didn't use any of the licenses that were available for Java. Google has now switched to the GPL for their Java, so there is no more problem for them going forward.
They didn't need a license because they didn't copy anything from Java and what they implemented isn't Java. What code you could write for Android looks like Java, as a language, but that's all.
It's a distinction Oracle are rather desperate to muddy because they'd like to make some money out of this case because they failed to develop anything remotely useful people wanted. A lot of their customers are starting jump ship as well. Revenue-wise this is quite important to Oracle, and you see that in how desperate their lawyers get.
Which MIGHT be true, except Sun said they were open source and free to use. Calling backsies was garbage on the playground and it's still garbage.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Dunno that I agree with Page's stance at all.
His argument seems to hinge on declarations not being part of the code, and are somehow automatic consequences of the implementation or at best trivial afterthoughts. It seems to me that APIs are actually the toughest part to get right and it takes experience and skill to design a logical, flexible and useful API, Hardly zero value stuff.
Next thing you know - UK suing US for copyright infringement on English language since US stopped paying their license fee with the Boston Tea Party.