

EFF Stands With Innovative Developers in the Wake of Oracle v. Google - ScottWRobinson
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/eff-stands-innovative-developers-wake-oracle-v-google

======
SNvD7vEJ
So, by implementing any of the interfaces, or extending any of the classes
defined in the Java SE standard lib, I would be violating Oracle's copyright
on Java.

;)

------
rhino369
While I'm not sure how I stand on Oracle v. Google, I don't really agree with
EFF's legal analysis here.

Nothing in that case suggests that using an API is infringement. It's about
re-implementing an API for a different purpose. So using Twitters API is fine,
but copying Twitters API for use on a Twitter clone service, not fine.

I also don't think this case necessarily prevents re-using an API for
interoperability. The case was about Google reimplementing Java API for use in
the android davlik engine. That really isn't interoperability since Java
wouldn't run on it. They just copied some java apis for the convenience of
android programers.

Pardon my ignorance but is that really common in the programming world? To
take someones API and use it for a totally different purpose?

~~~
r0naa
It happens all the time, and that's a good thing.

> Twitters API for use on a Twitter clone service, not fine.

That's precisely what's bothering me the most. This is completely contingent
on your definition of what is an API.

The judgement is setting a precedent in defining an API by its routes and not
by what or how it processes data. To the court, it does not matter if you are
doing data intensive computations or just stripping html from a string... if
the route is the same you are screwed.

HTTP/1.1 GET /v1/news/latest_updates becomes intellectual property of Company
Inc.

Imagine the amount of patent trolling wars that are going to be waged because
of that ruling, what a freaking nightmare.

PS: The parent comment should not be downvoted.

\- I come to HN to hear people's opinions and learn from them, even if they
are dissenting. It's fine to disagree, but do not silence people for thinking
differently. Every constructive contribution should be part of the discussion.

~~~
rhino369
Again, pardon my ignorance, my only attempt at API use resulted in a very
poorly programmed python app that was supposed to tell me which train to take
. . .

but isn't that just using the HTTP/1.1 GET method? Just using someone else's
API with a new paramter isn't an expressive action and clearly isn't
copyrightable.

But the court would say the HTTP/1.1 GET [url] api is copyrighted by whoever
wrote the HTTP spec.

The court didn't rule than ANY api is copyrightable. Just that the specific
Java ones at issue where.

For example, Copyright law has what is called the "merger doctrine" which
essentially says that if there is only one or maybe a few ways to implement
something, then it isn't copyrightable.

So while you can copyright Microsoft Excel, you probably can't copyright a
simple method that adds two intergers together. There is essentially only one
way to do it.

The Fed Cir. in Oracle rejected that argument because there are unlimited ways
to implement the Java libraries API. Why did Google even call them
java.XXXXXXX.XXXX when they could have been Android.XXX.XXX, etc.

There is another doctrine that states that industry convention can't be
copyrighted. GET is industry convention and would never be copyrightable. But
the data structure it send back may or may not be.

~~~
wtallis
> " Why did Google even call them java.XXXXXXX.XXXX when they could have been
> Android.XXX.XXX, etc."

That wouldn't be implementing the Java APIs any more, as evidenced by the fact
that no code relying on the Java APIs would be able to compile against your
hypothetical Android standard library. By the Java language's own definition,
changing the package and class names makes it a different API.

