[License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

[Pamela Chestek]

On 7/7/19 12:08 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> Hi Pam,
>
>  
>
> Pam Chestek wrote this on 6/30/2019:
>
> > The [Oracle v. Google] case is about whether it was lawful to copy
> portions of software to enhance the ease of development of software
> for an entirely different software ecosystem.
>
>  
>
> What is the relevance (or indeed, what is the definition) of "entirely
> different software ecosystem"? I don't remember that being an issue
> when I was in computer science graduate school. If this case devolves
> into that distinction, then developers of software would want not to
> cross that line when they write new software.
>
Java and Android are not designed to work together. The purpose of the
copying was not for interoperability between Java and Android.
>
>  
>
> Pam quoted this on 7/7/2019 from /Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google LLC/, 886
> F.3d 1179, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
>
> > "And Google does not rely on any interoperability arguments in this
> appeal."
>
>  
>
> Then what is the relevance of "fair use"? Use for what purpose? I am
> curious about Google's otherwise hidden motivations in its actions.
>
I don't understand the question. To avoid liability for having copied
portions of Java. That the portion copied wasn't substantial, that ease
of adoption by developers is a valid reason to copy software, and so it
is a fair use.
>
>  
>
> In any event, the subject of this email thread is "Copyright on APIs".
> Are you saying that the Oracle v. Google case is not about APIs?
>
The case is about the copying of specifically selections of code from
Java, written in C, that the parties and the court called "APIs." The
parties could have called it "header information" rather than "APIs" and
the outcome would have been the same. However, because they did choose
to call it "APIs" the case is casting a longer shadow than it otherwise
would have. You and I both know that the Supreme Court can decide cases
broadly or narrowly. Narrowly, the Court could hold that for /this/
amount copied, for /this/ purpose, it is or is not a fair use. But any
other amount, of any other type of code, for any other purpose, would be
a different question that the Supreme Court may not answer. In which
case, the existing case law (particularly those cases for purposes of
software talking to each other) would remain undisturbed.

Pam
>
>  
>
> /Larry
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org>
> *On Behalf Of *Pamela Chestek
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 7, 2019 7:29 AM
> *To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Copyright on APIs
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On 7/7/2019 4:23 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>
>     While I haven't closely followed the details of Oracle vs Google,
>     purely from a layman and business standpoint it seems clear that
>     Google did create Android / Dalvik exactly to be interoperable
>     with Java. This means one can run the same Java source code on
>     either platform and the java.* namespace offers the same packages
>     and functionality.
>
> I believe this is an important distinction that is often missed. No,
> Android is not compatible with Java and was not meant to be. "As we
> noted in the prior appeal, however, Google did not seek to foster any
> 'inter-system consistency' between its platform and Oracle's Java
> platform. Oracle, 750 F.3d at 1371. And Google does not rely on any
> interoperability arguments in this appeal." /Oracle Am., Inc. v.
> Google LLC/, 886 F.3d 1179, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2018). If the Supreme
> Court doesn't go beyond its remit in /Google v. Oracle/, the earlier
> cases holding that this type of use is a fair use will still be good law.
>
>     But importantly, interoperability also goes the other way: Android
>     was compatible with the millions of developers familiar with Java
>     syntax and standard libraries.
>
> This is Google's argument why it is a fair use. It is what the Supreme
> Court's decision is likely to decide, although the Court may go beyond
> that. The main decision on this type of compatibility, /Lotus Dev.
> Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc./, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), held that
> the Lotus 1-2-3 menu hierarchy was an uncopyrightable method of
> operation. The Supreme Court heard the case but was equally divided,
> with the result that the appeals court's decision was affirmed.
>
>      
>
>     If I remember correctly, Oracle did find early on one function
>     implementation that had indeed been copy pasted from OpenJDK to
>     Android. But this was so minor (and obvious) it is not part of the
>     issues decided in higher courts.
>
>      
>
> Yes, there was minor copying but it's dropped out of the case.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190708/1b78b3d0/attachment-0001.html>