News - Google breached Oracle copyright but may not be liable

[HEXUS]

Copied API code may be 'fair use'.

Read more.

[Biscuit]

100 000?! I would be suprised if that even covered the legal bills and court charges.

[Infinite]

So this is good news for Google? £100,000 is a long way off £630 million, probably spent a couple of million on legal fees already....

[aidanjt]

How the hell can you copyright an API? That's like patenting book bindings or the steering wheel in a car.

[BobF64]

How the hell can you copyright an API? That's like patenting book bindings or the steering wheel in a car.

If you develop a special method of binding books or a certain design of steering wheel, both would be patentable, and rightly so.

Just because its an API doesnt mean it cant be copyright, just in the same way that the words in a book are copyright to the author, even though all the words are in other books and dictionaries.

Copyright doesnt prevent other people seeing, reading or calling your API from code, just prevents them making an identically named version of it, I dont know if the functionality needs to be the same though.

[aidanjt]

If you develop a special method of binding books or a certain design of steering wheel, both would be patentable, and rightly so.

Just because its an API doesnt mean it cant be copyright, just in the same way that the words in a book are copyright to the author, even though all the words are in other books and dictionaries.

Copyright doesnt prevent other people seeing, reading or calling your API from code, just prevents them making an identically named version of it, I dont know if the functionality needs to be the same though.

An API is a prototype interface, not code itself. There's nothing at all innovative about a programme interface, it's all standard language grammar for calling routines which actually contain code which implements the programme.

[BobF64]

An API is a prototype interface, not code itself. There's nothing at all innovative about a programme interface, it's all standard language grammar for calling routines which actually contain code which implements the programme.

Yes, and?

Innovation is protected by patent, patent is NOT copyright.

You copyright things by virtue of having written or created it, therefore it is entirely possible to copyright an API, even one made public, you say "this function, by this name and with these parameters is ours", Googles mistake seems to have been retaining the exact function name.

[aidanjt]

Yes, and?

Innovation is protected by patent, patent is NOT copyright.

You copyright things by virtue of having written or created it, therefore it is entirely possible to copyright an API, even one made public, you say "this function, by this name and with these parameters is ours", Googles mistake seems to have been retaining the exact function name.

You copyright things by virtue of it being an original works. An API isn't a works, it's an interface prototype. Hence why you can't copyright APIs in Europe. It's only in USofA where copyright fascism runs rampant can you get away with frivolous litigation like this.

[Scribe]

Yes, and?

Innovation is protected by patent, patent is NOT copyright.

You copyright things by virtue of having written or created it, therefore it is entirely possible to copyright an API, even one made public, you say "this function, by this name and with these parameters is ours", Googles mistake seems to have been retaining the exact function name.

The way I see it is it's not dissimilar to a contents page, referring to various chapters and by the chapter names and appropriate descriptions. However it's not copyright to list a contents page. What's more with APIs is that in order to not break compatibility and to allow users to use existing knowledge and skills, there can't be significant if any variation even if you wanted there to be. That would be like saying there's no way to avoid breaching copyright if you wished to use a freely available language in your custom system.

[crossy]

You copyright things by virtue of it being an original works. An API isn't a works, it's an interface prototype. Hence why you can't copyright APIs in Europe. It's only in USofA where copyright fascism runs rampant can you get away with frivolous litigation like this.

Hmm, one question - was the aforementioned API documented in a paid-for, or a free, document/document-pack? Reason I ask is that if the only way to get this API was via a paid-for route, then to my simple understanding Google ARE guilty of some kind of copyright violation.

On the other hand, if the API was "freely available" (both in the sense of widely and for no cost) then Oracle haven't got a leg to stand on. Otherwise how long before some joker starts applying for copyright on the entries/exits descriptions for obvious code, e.g. should I try to apply for copyright on the function "log_output" I wrote a couple of minutes ago that takes a string supplied, adds a date and outputs the result to a log file and screen output? How small can an "API" be - is two routines too small to count?

Not getting at you aidanjt, just that what you said got me thinking how utterly ridiculous treating API's like other IP is...

[HalloweenJack]

notice this only started when oracle bought java - sun microsystems happily allowed further penetration of java as used in android.... that in itself will **** all over oracles claim

[BobF64]

You copyright things by virtue of it being an original works. An API isn't a works, it's an interface prototype.

No...

Hence why you can't copyright APIs in Europe. It's only in USofA where copyright fascism runs rampant can you get away with frivolous litigation like this.

...its because you cant copyright APIs in Europe that its not considered an "original work", not the other way around.

If Europe decided that APIs represented the expression of functionality and permitted them to be copyrighted, they would be copyrightable, and thats probably only a matter of time.

Different systems allow for different things to be protected, but the correctness of the system isnt the issue., and under the applicable laws, those of the USA, copyrighting software is permitted, so APIs must be an "original work".

[Valinor]

...its because you cant copyright APIs in Europe that its not considered an "original work", not the other way around.

So you're saying that when making copyright law, they looked at APIs, went "they're not copyrighted, and so they're not an original work", as a pose to "they don't constitute an original work, and so we won't copyright them". I'm not an expert on copyright law, but the second reason sounds slightly more plausible.

[superscaper]

No...



...its because you cant copyright APIs in Europe that its not considered an "original work", not the other way around.

If Europe decided that APIs represented the expression of functionality and permitted them to be copyrighted, they would be copyrightable, and thats probably only a matter of time.

Different systems allow for different things to be protected, but the correctness of the system isnt the issue., and under the applicable laws, those of the USA, copyrighting software is permitted, so APIs must be an "original work".

As far as I know there's no such thing as "copyrighting" something. Copyright is established when the thing is created, it's not some central database register that you apply for like in the case of patents. There are central registers but that's just a voluntary thing to aid in future disputes. But if I were to write a story, for example, copyright "happens" when I write it, not afterwards in some beaurocratic registration process. If I come up with an amazing invention, there's no patent on it until I apply for one.

[BobF64]

So you're saying that when making copyright law, they looked at APIs, went "they're not copyrighted, and so they're not an original work", as a pose to "they don't constitute an original work, and so we won't copyright them". I'm not an expert on copyright law, but the second reason sounds slightly more plausible.

I'm not an expert either, however, if it were an "original work" it should be copyrightable by virtue of originality, but as its claimed APIs arent copyrightable in Europe, they therefore are not classified as "original works" for the purposes of copyright.

[aidanjt]

Different systems allow for different things to be protected, but the correctness of the system isnt the issue., and under the applicable laws, those of the USA, copyrighting software is permitted, so APIs must be an "original work".

The correctness of the system is absolutely at issue. What use is a court which is run by bureaucrats who don't know the difference between a works and its interface, other than acting as an anti-competitive regime for big corporations?