Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday January 14 2020, @05:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the #include⠀<stdio.h> dept.

The case Google v. Oracle America, previously named Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., is being heard by the US Supreme Court. At the center of the case is whether programmers require permission to use an application programming interface (API). The outcome will determine the extent to which APIs can or should be copyrighted. If it turns out that copyright can be used to lock competitors out of using any given API, then there are severe repercussions for software development, as all programs these days rely heavily on pre-existing libararies which are then accessed via APIs.

Google: The case for open innovation:

The Court will review whether copyright should extend to nuts-and-bolts software interfaces, and if so, whether it can be fair to use those interfaces to create new technologies, as the jury in this case found. Software interfaces are the access points that allow computer programs to connect to each other, like plugs and sockets. Imagine a world in which every time you went to a different building, you needed a different plug to fit the proprietary socket, and no one was allowed to create adapters.

This case will make a difference for everyone who touches technology—from startups to major tech platforms, software developers to product manufacturers, businesses to consumers—and we're pleased that many leading representatives of those groups will be filing their own briefs to support our position.

Mozilla: Competition and Innovation in Software Development Depend on a Supreme Court Reversal in Google v. Oracle:

At bottom in the case is the issue of whether copyright law bars the commonplace practice of software reimplementation, "[t]he process of writing new software to perform certain functions of a legacy product." (Google brief p.7) Here, Google had repurposed certain functional elements of Java SE (less that 0.5% of Java SE overall, according to Google's brief, p. 8) in its Android operating system for the sake of interoperability—enabling Java apps to work with Android and Android apps to work with Java, and enabling Java developers to build apps for both platforms without needing to learn the new conventions and structure of an entirely new platform.

Devclass: Google says nature of APIs under threat as Oracle case heads to US Supreme Court:

The case – ten years in making – centres on Oracle's claims that its Java patents and copyrights were infringed by Google when the search giant created its Android mobile operating system. An initial ruling in Google's favour was overturned on appeal, and the case is finally due to land in the Supreme Court this year. Google filed its opening brief for the justices this week.

When was the last time, outside of school, when you yourself have written a program entirely from scratch and not used even a single set of application programming interfaces? Yeah. Thought so.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 14 2020, @08:09PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 14 2020, @08:09PM (#943232)

    Hopefully the US Government recognizes that if secure encryption is stuck down in the US, it will continue in the rest of the world, and what that wood mean for the competitiveness and value of US based cryptographic products overall.

    While the encryption export law itself is idiotic, that doesn't mean that 99% of involved US officials don't recognize the reality of the situation.

    I believe the encryption export situation is more license for various TLAs to crawl inside private software they find interesting and give it a good once-over, and also slap export restrictions on various things as they see fit - it hasn't been a real restriction on practice in most areas. Back in 2012 I played with the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security and got a piece of software I wrote a Commodity Classification Automated Tracking System reference number issued by them - I'm pretty sure no human being even glanced at my application or software, I certainly have never been contacted or questioned about it and I did not show them the source code.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 14 2020, @09:42PM (1 child)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 14 2020, @09:42PM (#943290) Journal

    We need government mandated ROT17.

    "The government selected ROT17 because two applications of it will not revert the ciphertext back to plain text.", the senator explained.

    "...and furthermore", the senator added, "we chose ROT17 because 17 is a prime number unlike 13."

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 14 2020, @09:58PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday January 14 2020, @09:58PM (#943298)

      In 2012 they mandated 56 bit max encryption, which is silly easy to break.... if you have the algorithm.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday January 14 2020, @10:02PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 14 2020, @10:02PM (#943303) Journal

    While the encryption export law itself is idiotic, that doesn't mean that 99% of involved US officials don't recognize the reality of the situation.

    As an off-topic remark, this is a classic example of overregulation. "99%" are recognizing the absurdity of the situation and looking the other way when convenient. This sort of flexibility naturally leads to stuff like regulatory capture and regulation not being enforced.