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.
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.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @06:33PM (8 children)
Even so, you can't violate a copyright by accident or through independent invention, but you can violate a patent without even knowing that it exists. Oh, and developers should never ever look at any patents ever because that increases your liability.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 14 2020, @06:43PM
You forgot to mention "submarine patents".
And I do not mean patents on submarines.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 14 2020, @06:51PM (3 children)
Sure you can! All those song A sounds too similar to song B lawsuits don't require proving intent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday January 14 2020, @07:07PM (1 child)
I think you must have four bars that are "too similar".
This is why we need computers to write songs with every possible chord progression so that every song ever written has four bars somewhere that match some four bars written by the computer.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2020, @10:31PM
Alternatively, just hire a decent prog rock band...Yes, at their peak, could have probably managed that feat in one song...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday January 14 2020, @08:30PM
You don't need intent, but you do need to have been exposed to the material you allegedly copied. For music, I guess judges just take that as a given.
Clean room reimplementation works precisely because copyright doesn't apply to independent work. If you can prove that you've never been exposed to the original, you're off the hook.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 15 2020, @01:18AM (2 children)
You're assuming they're different constructs. They're not. They're the exact same government granted monopoly but one is for functional things and one for creative works (and the creative works one is essentially eternal as opposed to a couple decades). Software does not belong under creative works. It is not art, it is engineering.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday January 15 2020, @09:48PM (1 child)
Depends on the definition of "art", which has changed with time. When it comes to the Constitutional definition, programming might be considered an art. From wiki,
The Statute of Anne created copyright to advance learning and the USA changed that to advancing the arts and sciences. It seems they both had the same purpose, to grant a limited time monopoly to advance knowledge. Software, as an art form, can advance knowledge.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 16 2020, @04:22PM
Software is functional. It is not an art form, obfuscated Perl contests aside.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.