Oracle Wins Major Victory Against Google In API Copyright Case

[Guest]

The Supreme Court rejected Google's appeal on the ability to copyright APIs, letting an earlier appeals court ruling stand.

Oracle Wins Major Victory Against Google In API Copyright Case : Read more

 

[jdog2pt0]

That second to last paragraph "Google has already..." really gets to me. Oracle's comment absolutely sounds like something they'd say, and speaks volumes about the company as a whole. Google isn't perfect by any means, but they're right, they are definitely right.

 

[falchard]

O.O thats rare to see, a proper interpretation of copyright law. That being copyright granted by the Executive branch. So the judicial branch asked the executive branch on how it should proceed in this case of copyright.
I am typically anti-patent/copyright. In software we always work by interpolation. Hurry someone write binary for a line reader when you need to make a video game... GO. Also most software engineers learn coding standards. So using a standard naming convention that Oracle developed and instructed software engineers to use should be of no surprise.
At the base Google used code supplied by another company under GNU, offered their software for free under the terms of use; and made money from the marketplace. Oracle sees that as a way to skirt the effort they put into Java. So something tells me this won't impact Microsoft since they understand the importance of licensing fees.
However, the big issue here is copyrights. If copyrights on software span several decades, it could mean IBM can sue the crap out of everyone for using functions they developed in the '70s. To me the original interpretation on copyright laws is a limit of 7 years. For patents they must be made public, be a benefit for the pursuit of science or engineering, already have a working prototype, and signed by the Secretary of State for a period of 7 years. I think we have gone way past that in a bad bad way.

 

[Karadjgne]

Well if copywrites really go back decades, Microsoft will be in a heap of trouble when Apple sues them over stealing 'Windows'

 

[Solandri]

This seems pretty simple. Unlike patents, copyrights last a lifetime + 70 years. So if Oracle wins, find the guys who wrote C and C++, and have them sue Oracle for a bajillion dollars for violating their copyright on the C and C++ language "API".

 

[pwnish3r]

I can't help but think that the old farts on the supreme court denied to hear the case simply because they are intimidated by computers, especially something so complex that has spanned over decades like programming copyright infringement. These people need aids to send their email, or I wouldn't even doubt it if they just refuse to use email.

The amount of research that would be required for this case would be astronomical, which, by the way, is their job, one that comes with a great deal of respect and responsibility.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but they are suing because Google because they built libraries that preform similar functions as those provided by Sun, which is now Oracle's property? And they named them similarly? (Calling a maximum function, to use the example given by the article, max is copyright infringement?)

This case has major implications, and to ignore the appeal to this idiotic decision is just plain stupid.

Someone prove me wrong.

 

[jasonelmore]

Well if copywrites really go back decades, Microsoft will be in a heap of trouble when Apple sues them over stealing 'Windows'

they didn't steal it. IIRC gates tried to sell it to steve jobs, and jobs said no thanks, and gates bought another company with some tech patents he needed, and ran with it.

 

[cats_Paw]

Max for maximum function is copyright infringement? Oh, right, Murica!

Of course trying to guess who is right and wrong here without knowing all facts is a bit pointless, but there are two things to consider:

1) There lawsuits are becoming way too common
2) The government will benefit if Oracle wins, since Oracle will have to pay income tax from the money they earn (since you cant demonstrate on paper your projected losses due to copyright infringement to the tax office as a cost, you can only do that in court vs a private corporation), but if google would win the lawsuit, and no money changed hands, there is no extra tax paid.

 

[Achoo22]

Software patents are just WRONG. Software should be subject to copyright law and not patent law, period. It's a slippery slope, and soon we're going to have Intel claiming that anything running on a PC is derivative of their CPU patent.

 

[back_by_demand]

Well if copywrites really go back decades, Microsoft will be in a heap of trouble when Apple sues them over stealing 'Windows'

Good luck with that, Xerox will sue Apple

 

[ipwitan]

They don't. The statute of limitations for copyright is 3 years from infringement. Thus, almost all such statements about a future of world of rampant copyright litigation about old standards is not possible. The SC can still rule on this matter AFTER there is a the trial on infringement and all appeals made. The SC simply didn't want to issue a blanket statement that there could be no copyright in an API. That position is not unreasonable. And it certainly does not say that what happened here is infringement. The SC generally does not like to interject an opinion for 1/2 a case. They like the entire matter wrapped up with a pretty bow at the end of the process.

For what it is worth, it is very difficult to prove copyright infringement in software absent direct copying, which usually occurs intentionally and as a result of counterfeiting/pirating and theft. Remember, for copyright infringement, independent creation is a legitimate defense not available under patent law. Copyright and software is not your problem. Software patents on the other hand...

 

[Solandri]

They don't. The statute of limitations for copyright is 3 years from infringement. Thus, almost all such statements about a future of world of rampant copyright litigation about old standards is not possible.

It's 3 years from the infringement, not 3 years from the establishment of the copyrighted standard. In the case of APIs (and computer languages and calling things windows), since you have to continue using the copyrighted interface every time you write code, every day of code updating and maintenance is new infringement under this ruling.* So you may not be able to sue for infringement of past code, but you can sue for continued present use of that code.

* The SCOTUS kicked it down to a lower court to determine whether or not this sort of use falls under fair use. I don't see how the software industry can survive if the court decides that writing code compliant with an API is not fair use. Basically people would have to release software projects like Java with a license waiving their right to sue for copyright infringement, rendering the ruling moot. No waiver, and nobody will use your project. The only use case I can see copyrighted APIs protecting is if an employee stole your private code, and released your internal API to the public. Reverse engineering would still be allowed per the Compaq case.

 

[ipwitan]

... In the case of APIs (and computer languages and calling things windows), since you have to continue using the copyrighted interface every time you write code, every day of code updating and maintenance is new infringement under this ruling.*

*&*

Agreed in this point of law. However, what is considered to be "continuing" is getting smaller and smaller.