Slashdot Mirror
Android Is 'Fair Use' As Google Beats Oracle In $9 Billion Lawsuit (arstechnica.com)
infernalC writes: Ars Technica is reporting that the verdict is in, and that the jury decided that Google's duplication of several Java interfaces is fair use. Ars Technica writes that Google's Android OS does not infringe upon Oracle-owned copyrights because its re-implementation of 37 Java APIs is protected by "fair use." The jury unanimously answered "yes" in response to whether or not Google's use of Java APIs was a "fair use" under copyright law. The trial is now over, since Google won. "Google's win somewhat softens the blow to software developers who previously thought programming language APIs were free to use," Ars Technica writes. "It's still the case that APIs can be protected by copyright under the law of at least one appeals court. However, the first high-profile attempt to control APIs with copyright law has now been stymied by a "fair use" defense." The amount Oracle may have asked for in damages could have been as much as $9 billion.
The trial is now over,
Oracle has threatened to appeal (because of the way the instructions to the jury were phrased), and in fact has filed a motion for JOML, which would overturn the jury's decision (basically they asked the judge to evaluate the evidence and determine whether a non-descript 'reasonable' jury would find it fair use).
So expect this to last for the rest of the year at least.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's not code (as in executable code), they are interface classes - declarations if you will - which implement no functionality at all but only specify how to interact with a subsystem.
Oracle is engaging in hyperbole.
There are four factors to consider when determining if the copying is "fair use":
... a work of the United States Government not subject to copyright protection.
1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
Google's use of the Java interfaces is to educate other pieces of code about what the implementation does. Interfaces are essentially documentative in nature, not creative...
2. Nature of the copyrighted work
Interfaces are not very creative. All they really do is document the input and output of an implementation. The implementation is where the creativity of the work is expressed.
3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
I bet the interfaces are less than 3% of the code base. If not, we have an over-architected language on our hands here..
4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
Oracle didn't lose a dime over this until they started paying lawyers to sue Google. If anything, Google's use of the Java interfaces made Java more valuable, because it brought more developers into the Java fold.
This comment shamelessly copies content from http://www.copyright.gov/fair-...
Well, one court circuit has created the precedent that APIs are copyrightable. That's not to say that same judgement applies in any other by default, you could still press the argument in another court (albeit with an uphill battle) that APIs can't be copyrighted.
Yes but as the GP pointed out, you can only even attempt to overturn that precedent if you have significant resources to fund a legal team to try to do it.
Two contradictory decisions can occur simultaneously in different circuits, it's how many of the social issues SCOTUS has dealt with lately have come to them. And that's probably where it would lead, to the Supreme Court, who would rule once and for all.
Well in this case one court ruled that APIs cannot be copyrighted, that judgement was overturned and the case was returned to that court with the ruling that APIs can indeed be copyrighted. The case proceeded on that basis and the argument was then "fair use". As it stands, the precedent in both circuits is that APIs can be copyrighted.