Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the application-programming-INTERFACE dept.

The Obama administration has asked the United States Supreme Court to decline Google's appeal against a 2014 federal appeals court ruling finding copyright infringement of Oracle's Java code:

The case involves how much copyright protection should extend to the Java programing language. Oracle won a federal appeals court ruling last year that allows it to copyright parts of Java, whilst Google argues it should be free to use Java without paying a licencing fee. Google, which used Java to design its Android smartphone operating system, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court then asked the Obama administration in January for its opinion on whether it should take the case because the federal government has a strong interest. The Federal Trade Commission, for instance, must ensure companies do not break antitrust laws when claiming software copyright protection against each other.

According to Google, an Oracle victory would obstruct "an enormous amount of innovation" because software developers would not be able to freely build on each others' work. But Oracle says effective copyright protection is the key to software innovation.

In the court filing on Tuesday, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Google's argument that the code is not entitled to copyright protection lacks merit and did not need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Verrilli added that Google had raised important concerns about the effect that enforcement of Oracle's copyright could have on software development, but said those issues could be addressed via further proceedings on Google's separate "fair use" defence in San Francisco federal court.

Google v. Oracle, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-410


[Editor's Comment: 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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:08PM

    by Adamsjas (4507) on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:08PM (#189290)

    Not all doom and gloom.

    Most of those organizations will simply declare their API interface files as open source. Not many are as short sighted as Oracle.

    Trying to lock up your API definitions is like trying to charge admission to walk on the sidewalk leading to your supermarket. With three other markets across the street, and another one every 6 blocks, it won't take long for that lesson to be learned.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:47PM (#189375)

    > Most of those organizations will simply declare their API interface files as open source.

    Great. And what about abandonware? No business will ever clone an API that they can't get official copyright permission for.

    When copyright is used to change the default permissions from "allow all" to "deny allow" the result is ossification where all the oddball corner cases turn into dead-ends instead of opportunities. Unfortunately it is those odd-ball corner-cases where creativity is the most extreme.