Today, the US Supreme Court granted Google's petition to review its copyright case with Oracle involving Google’s use of Oracle's application program interface (API).
Google's petition states two issues: (1) whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
See SCOTUS blog for details.
Google used 37 API packages and 7,000 lines of code to make it easier for Java programmers to write applications for the Android operating system. Given Google's resources, maybe not the best decision given this protracted legal battle.
Many amicus briefs supporting Oracle's APIs are not copyrightable and/or Google is making fair use. On the other hand, the Federal government recommended the Supreme Court deny Google’s petition. Finally, the Federal Circuit held the APIs are copyrightable and Google use is not fair use, but the Supreme Court has a track record of not affirming the Federal Circuit. Some commentators believe this case may be heard in early 2020.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label APIs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label APIs. Show all posts
Friday, November 15, 2019
Friday, April 13, 2018
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology - Special Issue - Software Interface Copyright
The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology published a Special Issue - Software Interface Copyright worth reading if you are interested what certain academics think regarding copyright's role with respect to application programming interfaces (APIs). It also discusses fair use and relates to Oracle v. Google.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Fortune - Let Oracle Own APIs, Justice Dept Tells Top Court in Surprise Filing
I suggest reading the Fortune article: Let Oracle Own APIs, Justice Dept Tells Top Court in Surprise Filing and DOJ's filing.
The DOJ filing which is worth reading encourages the US Supreme Court to deny Google's petition to hear its arguments to deny copyright protection to Oracle's Java related application programming interfaces (APIs).
It does a good job of explaining the scope of copyright protection for software:
Petitioner (Google) contends, however, that even if the declaring code is an “original work[] of authorship” under Section 102(a), it is not entitled to copyright protection because it constitutes a “method of operation” or “system” within the meaning of Section 102(b). That argument is incorrect. . . . Section 102(b) is not a limitation on what kinds of expressive works may be protected by a copyright. Rather, it is a limitation on how broadly the copyright extends.
DOJ stated, among other things, in the filing: "The Android platform uses the Java programming language, but [Google] purposely designed Android not to be compatible with the Java platform or interoperable with Java programs."
Google's response: "We still look forward to defending the concepts of interoperability that have traditionally contributed to innovation in the software industry."
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The DOJ filing which is worth reading encourages the US Supreme Court to deny Google's petition to hear its arguments to deny copyright protection to Oracle's Java related application programming interfaces (APIs).
It does a good job of explaining the scope of copyright protection for software:
Petitioner (Google) contends, however, that even if the declaring code is an “original work[] of authorship” under Section 102(a), it is not entitled to copyright protection because it constitutes a “method of operation” or “system” within the meaning of Section 102(b). That argument is incorrect. . . . Section 102(b) is not a limitation on what kinds of expressive works may be protected by a copyright. Rather, it is a limitation on how broadly the copyright extends.
DOJ stated, among other things, in the filing: "The Android platform uses the Java programming language, but [Google] purposely designed Android not to be compatible with the Java platform or interoperable with Java programs."
Google's response: "We still look forward to defending the concepts of interoperability that have traditionally contributed to innovation in the software industry."
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Oracle v. Google - EFF Amicus Brief - Java APIs not copyrightable
EFF attorneys Julie Samuels and Michael Barclay filed an amicus brief for certain prominent computer scientists. Although not a patent topic, it involves IP protection of Java APIs, which have functional aspects so deserves a quick pointer. The amicus brief supports Google's position that Oracle's Java APIs cannot be copyrightable for reasons of software development. The table of contents of the brief outlines some of the PC history as support for the position.
I expect Oracle faces an uphill battle in getting the Federal Circuit to reverse the district court's decision that the Java APIs are uncopyrightable. But some are quite sure this is wrong. See e.g., FOSS Patents EFF's amicus briefs in Oracle v. Google suggest non-copyrightability is only path to interoperability. Florian Mueller concludes "The right balance must be struck, and in my opinion Google and the EFF's positions are too far on the anti-IP side. That's why I can't support them, though I support the cause of interoperability (more consistently than they do)."
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
I expect Oracle faces an uphill battle in getting the Federal Circuit to reverse the district court's decision that the Java APIs are uncopyrightable. But some are quite sure this is wrong. See e.g., FOSS Patents EFF's amicus briefs in Oracle v. Google suggest non-copyrightability is only path to interoperability. Florian Mueller concludes "The right balance must be struck, and in my opinion Google and the EFF's positions are too far on the anti-IP side. That's why I can't support them, though I support the cause of interoperability (more consistently than they do)."
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)