Google wins over Oracle

[kennyc]

This could have affected any Android devices - readers, phones, tablets, etc. It is the correct decision/result IMO.

"Google won a jury verdict that kills Oracle’s claim to a $9 billion slice of the search giant’s Android phone business.

Oracle contended that Google needed a license to use its Java programming language to develop Android, the operating system in 80 percent of the world’s mobile devices. Jurors in San Francisco federal court on Thursday rejected that argument and concluded Google made fair use of the code under copyright law....."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...c91_story.html

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This could have affected any Android devices - readers, phones, tablets, etc. It is the correct decision/result IMO.

"Google won a jury verdict that kills Oracle’s claim to a $9 billion slice of the search giant’s Android phone business.

Oracle contended that Google needed a license to use its Java programming language to develop Android, the operating system in 80 percent of the world’s mobile devices. Jurors in San Francisco federal court on Thursday rejected that argument and concluded Google made fair use of the code under copyright law....."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...c91_story.html

As a computer programmer, I think the jury made the correct decision. If Oracle had won, it would have overturned a 60+ year tradition of programmers improving upon other people's software by retaining the API but replacing the implementation with a better one.

[rdfry]

It was a travesty from the beginning. Larry Ellison is from the Steve Jobs School of patent trolling.

[eschwartz]

Finally, this pathetic copyright trolling has been beaten down.

[pdurrant]

I'll point out that although the decision went the right way, it doesn't seem to have done so for the ideal reason.

"Jurors [...] concluded that Google made fair use of the code under copyright law."

They didn't throw out the case because APIs can't be copyright, but only because they felt that use of the API was fair use.

I would have preferred a result that concluded that the API on its own wasn't copyrightable.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'll point out that although the decision went the right way, it doesn't seem to have done so for the ideal reason.

"Jurors [...] concluded that Google made fair use of the code under copyright law."

They didn't throw out the case because APIs can't be copyright, but only because they felt that use of the API was fair use.

I would have preferred a result that concluded that the API on its own wasn't copyrightable.

That was not possible. This was the fourth trial of the case. Oracle won the first one. Google appealed and won the appeal. There the outcome was what you hoped. But then the federal court ruled against it. The supreme court refused to hear the case. So it went back to the second court and the only way left open for google was fair use.

[murg]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'll point out that although the decision went the right way, it doesn't seem to have done so for the ideal reason.

"Jurors [...] concluded that Google made fair use of the code under copyright law."

They didn't throw out the case because APIs can't be copyright, but only because they felt that use of the API was fair use.

I would have preferred a result that concluded that the API on its own wasn't copyrightable.

Because of differences in the terms of 'fair use' in various countries, API's being copyrightable but also fair useable may lead to software being legal in some countries and illegal in others.

[pwalker8]

The obvious solution is that software is not copyrightable. As a programmer, I know that every piece of software is built on top of someone else's software. That's the way programming works, you use common patterns that have been used by everyone for years. It's pretty obvious that copyright was intended for individual works of art. The idea that software was copyrightable was simply a lawyer's construction in an attempt to create a barrier against other people entering their market.

Frankly, if Oracle is successful in trying to use Java to extort money out of other companies, it will destroy the software industry. Obviously, programmers will start moving to other platforms, but the problem is that no platform is safe.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The obvious solution is that software is not copyrightable. As a programmer, I know that every piece of software is built on top of someone else's software. That's the way programming works, you use common patterns that have been used by everyone for years. It's pretty obvious that copyright was intended for individual works of art. The idea that software was copyrightable was simply a lawyer's construction in an attempt to create a barrier against other people entering their market.

Frankly, if Oracle is successful in trying to use Java to extort money out of other companies, it will destroy the software industry. Obviously, programmers will start moving to other platforms, but the problem is that no platform is safe.

There's nothing wrong with software being copyrightable. Although I would prefer it to be in its own category rather than shoe-horned into literary work.

But an API just shouldn't be copyrightable at all.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

There's nothing wrong with software being copyrightable. Although I would prefer it to be in its own category rather than shoe-horned into literary work.

But an API just shouldn't be copyrightable at all.

Your points are both good.

But API's are a mixed bag: in some ways they are an expression of an idea and in other ways they are an idea expressed by the code they call.
If they aren't copyrightable they would likely be patentable and that would be more troublesome than being copyrightable.

Going with fair use might be the best ruling for Google supporters.

Just remember the case is not over.
Appeals remain.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Going with fair use might be the best ruling for Google supporters.

I don't really care what happens to the two principles in this case. But if use of APIs require a licence because of copyright, far more people will be affected.

All those PostScript clones will stop. Wine will be no more. there's an amazing amount of software built on the free re-implementations of APIs.

[jhowell]

I can see copyright for the documentation of an API, not the API itself. To me a patent makes much more sense for an API since it is a functional entity. In either case any elements that are staright-forward extensions of previously existing APIs should be excluded from protection.

[HarryT]

In all honesty I can see no reason why an API would not be protected by copyright. Is the design of an API not a creative process? If it is (and it certainly seems to me that it is) then it should automatically be protected by copyright under the Berne Convention.

Does anyone know what the arguments are to the contrary?

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In all honesty I can see no reason why an API would not be protected by copyright. Is the design of an API not a creative process? If it is (and it certainly seems to me that it is) then it should automatically be protected by copyright under the Berne Convention.

Does anyone know what the arguments are to the contrary?

It's not a simple thing to make, but essentially it's just naming convention of names and parameters. This convention can be then used to operate on code behind it.
In sense it would be like copyrighting using of certain terminology in certain contexts.

Also in EU APIs aren't copyrightable...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...opolise-ideas/

"To accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development," the court stated.

Essentially, even if good API design is very hard, in large scale it would be destructive. As you could copyright print("text"). And then use very basic thing of language as tool to attack competition...

[ApK]

Would a verdict for Oracle have meant that AT&T could claim infringement for all Linux and other *NIX implementations?

Anyway, knowing nothing about the case besides what I read in this thread, I'm glad Google won.

Oh, and the thread title had me confused. I thought it was saying that Google had convinced Oracle to come over to Google's side, i.e. they won them over.