Slashdot Mirror
Google Asks Supreme Court To Rule On When Code Can Be Copyrighted (theverge.com)
Google is asking the Supreme Court to make the final call in its infamous dispute with Oracle. "Today, the company announced it has filed a petition with the Court, asking the justices to determine the boundaries of copyright law in code," reports The Verge. From the report: The case dates back to 2010, when Oracle first accused Google of improperly using elements of Oracle's Java programming language to build Android. Oracle said that Google's use of Java application programing interfaces was a violation of copyright law. Google has responded that APIs are too fundamental to programming to be copyrighted. The case has led to two jury trials, and several rulings have doled out wins and losses to both companies over the course of eight years. Last year, a favorable Oracle decision set Google up to potentially lose billions of dollars.
Google asked for a Supreme Court hearing on the case in 2014, but the Court rejected the request at the time. The company says new issues are now at play, and is asking the Court to decide whether software interfaces can be copyrighted, and whether using them to build something new constitutes fair use under the law. In its new petition to the Supreme Court, Google says the case is not only important to copyright law, but has "sheer practical importance," as it centers around two touchstones of computing: Google's Android and Oracle's Java. The Court's intervention could alter the future of software, the company argues.
Google asked for a Supreme Court hearing on the case in 2014, but the Court rejected the request at the time. The company says new issues are now at play, and is asking the Court to decide whether software interfaces can be copyrighted, and whether using them to build something new constitutes fair use under the law. In its new petition to the Supreme Court, Google says the case is not only important to copyright law, but has "sheer practical importance," as it centers around two touchstones of computing: Google's Android and Oracle's Java. The Court's intervention could alter the future of software, the company argues.
Lets hope the special interests and patent trolls don't get the court to screw up!
;)
Just my 2 cents
It's somehow pleasing to see a huge copyright holder get shafted by the laws they helped promote. Hey Google, if this stuff went into the public domain in a timely manner like it's supposed to you wouldn't have your tit in a wringer right now.
You fucking take that shit about BASIC back right this second.
If Google loses, what happens to Unix?
I can imagine that the court would rule that merely copying the style of the API is not copyright. But copying the exact text of it, down to the names of the methods is another matter entirely.
You cannot copyright a genre of novels, or the types of characters within. But you can certainly copyright specific characters with specific names.
It flows exactly to *Nix. SCO might live again.
We would have to go through all of our applications and rename the methods. Or new legislation would need to be passed, which is unthinkable.
Interestingly, a big loser in that would be Oracle themselves. They should have bought SCO (or whoever now "owns" Unix) before starting this. Then they could have it all.
It's a good thing APIs weren't copyrightable in the olden days or Compaq would have been shut down on their firmware clone and there's be no PC industry and IBM would still be the bad guy and Apple would have died after their 1984 commercial and you'd be stuck with CGA video and 640k of RAM.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Freely-available UNIX implementations have been available for DECADES . BSD. Linux. Hell, Solaris was open-sourced at one point.
And the owners of what you call "the UNIX kernel API" did NOTHING.
Doesn't matter. Estoppel doesn't apply. Novell didn't make any promises not to exert their copyright. They didn't know they could exert their copyright, until the Federal Circuit starting blathering around in not one but two idiot rulings. Depending on who you ask, they still can't. The Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits all say APIs aren't copyrightable at all, so the whole question of fair use is moot. The Third and Federal Circuits say they are copyrightable. The Federal Circuit went even farther, saying they're copyrightable and there's no way to make fair use of any API.
I read the 21 relevant pages from Google's writ, and I'd say it'll be granted. The second half of it hinges on fair use, and it's a weaker argument. The first half is all about the disagreements among the circuit courts, and that always attracts the attention of the Supreme Court.
Google's lawyers did attempt to address the earth-shattering ramifications if the Federal Circuit's ruling is allowed to stand, but not as much as I'd like. Hopefully they were saving the best parts of that for oral arguments. This Supreme Court has spent years asking, "Where's the harm?" and if you can't answer, you lose. If Google's lawyers successfully convey the harm, they have a good chance. They'd better describe the harm to all software everywhere though, not just the harm to Google software.
Google did point out that the Federal Circuit (full name United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) is disingenuous at best, malicious at worst, in their second overturning of the jury verdict that declared Google's use of Java APIs fair use. The Federal Circuit said that they assumed all findings of fact were completed by the jury (as they're required to do), then they contradicted both themselves and the jury and tossed out the verdict. I'm starting to wonder if the Federal Circuit botched their ruling on purpose in order to precipitate intervention by the Supreme Court.
You've got some santorum between your teeth.
OK. I take it back. Only because BASIC stomps the dogshit out of Java.
I read the 21 relevant pages from Google's writ, and I'd say it'll be granted. The second half of it hinges on fair use, and it's a weaker argument. The first half is all about the disagreements among the circuit courts, and that always attracts the attention of the Supreme Court.
Lawyers are trained to be convincing, and they are by tradition only giving one half of the case. Thus when you read one side's argument (or sit in court listening to one side's argument), it will usually sound convincing. To get a clear view, it is necessary to read both sides. Even better, read the judge's conclusion. But don't make your analysis based on only one side's lawyers. They are biased by design.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There are several aspects to this. What you seem to be talking about is "substantial similarity", to show that copying occurred, because it's unlikely that it would happen just by chance.
To be infringing, there must be copying, since independent creation is allowed. However, some aspects of a copyrighted work are not protected by copyright, and even if you do copy those parts, there is no infringement.
102(b), that Google references, says that various specific abstractions can't be copyrighted (as opposed to something like a plot or a story). If an "idea" is too abstract, it can't be owned. Processes and procedures, concepts, discoveries, systems , and methods of operation are also excluded from protection.
If you copy a story, even if you use completely different words, even if you tell it in a different style, you can still be infringing on the story (if the story was original AND you copied it rather than come up with it independently). That's because "story" isn't excluded by 102(b). In particular, it isn't so abstract("idea") that it is no longer "expression" (and maybe has become "concept").
An algorithm is excluded ("process" or "procedure"). Facts are excluded ("discovery"). Recipes are excluded ("procedure", and a list of ingredients isn't considered to be creative). The descriptions of all of these can be copyrighted, but that can't block someone from using your work to create new descriptions of the same thing.
Google's claim is that the abstract Java API is a "system or method of operation", and that it includes the specific names as part of that. That means you can write a book (in your own words) describing the Java API, and you can include the actual names used in that API when describing it.
If you can't describe something that is excluded by 102(a) without using specific language, even that literal language isn't protected by copyright (this principle is called "merger"). In the Java language, there is only one way to declare a function (a "method signature"), a class, a constant, so if those elements (including the names) are excluded by 102(b), then the declarations are, by merger, unprotected by copyright.
The only parts of the Android API and Java API source code that are the same are those parts of the declarations that can't be changed without changing the API. If you were to start off with that book describing the Java API, even if it has no source code in it, you'd end up with the exact same declarations even if you had no access to the Java API source code and thus had no way to copy it. The only thing you'd be copying is the abstract Java API itself (including the names). If that is excluded from copyright protection by 102(b), then there is no infringement.
That's one of the questions Google asks of the Supreme Court, if the Java API is excluded from copyright protection by 102(b).
Note that a list of names, if it can be protected by copyright at all, has a very weak copyright. Unless you copy the exact same list, with only "trivial" changes, there is no infringement Google copied only a portion of the Java API, and added a lot more of its own. The differences between them is significantly more than "trivial".
The lawsuit with Microsoft was about trademark and breach of contract. Sun failed in a copyright action against MS.
The case against Google is copyright, not trademark. Google never claimed that their platform was Java, as in the Java Platform, using the Java trademarks.
The linked page says Google uses the Java programming language (which they do) and implements parts of the Java API (which they do). None of that is claiming to be Java, nor do they use any Java trademarks.