In addition as the previous poster mentions, API's are essentially equivalent to names of chapters in an encyclopedia. Google supposedly didn't use the creative copy that followed the chapter name. They made use of the chapter organization only. How that affects copyright and fair use is still to be decided.
IMO Fair Use seems to have a good chance of succeeding if it comes to that as most of the original jurors reportedly found in Google favor on that question in the first trial.
What's your fair use theory then? That Android is educational?
Right but you misrepresent Sun's business model. They did not license the APIs. In fact they operated very similarly to Mono in this case. Please, tell me who benefits from having the API structure copyrightable? No small developer is going to benefit here as there need only be one prior example and it need not be registered as copyrighted. Therefore literally any developer using any organisation of an API (so most developers) could be liable with absolutely no way to even research it beforehand.
I get the feeling you are not a developer as you think this is ideological rather than pragmatic.
Nope, Sun made its money licensing Java APIs, they made their money doing exactly what Google didn't license Java for.
What's your fair use theory then? That Android is educational?
I'm not an attorney (or developer or even a student of the law) and hardly any more qualified than you to argue law or formulate a legal theory. Anything I would write would simply be parroting something I read on the internet. . . . again same as you. How qualified are our sources?
If you don't like the Mono example, what about Wine, the reimplementation of the Windows API which has certainly not been endorsed by MS?
First of all WINE didn't "copy" anything, it's a reverse engineering of the Windows API, and is perfectly legal. WINE went out of its way to avoid any copyright issues.
WINE is the perfect example for how one can replicate functionality without copying any code, without even copying the structure, sequence and organization of the Windows API.
What WINE did to Windows APIs isn't even remotely like what Google did to Java APIs.
It's a misleading view. Let's say I wrote a book on cats. I label each chapter with the name of the major cat species I am dealing with, include some brief details on their geographic distribution and add a few major categories in to distinguish one cat group from another.
Now, another person produces a book that is completely different from my book other than chapter names and organisation.
Is this really copyright infringement? There is clearly some creativity that goes into putting together a list of cats, but it's pretty damn limited. Do you think that once I have organised cats in a certain way, that I should gain copyright protection over that particular organisation as well as the names? That is especially ludicrous to me.
All of which has nothing to do withjungmark's comment about fair use.
All of which has nothing to do withjungmark's comment about fair use.
It has to do with the protected nature of the material itself. Since when does a chapter structure give me copyright on the structure as well as the names?
I'm not an attorney (or developer or even a student of the law) and hardly any more qualified than you to argue law or formulate a legal theory. Anything I would write would simply be parroting something I read on the internet. . . . again same as you. How qualified are our sources?
Only attorneys are allowed to have opinions on or discuss the law?
It's a misleading view. Let's say I wrote a book on cats. I label each chapter with the name of the major cat species I am dealing with, include some brief details on their geographic distribution and add a few major categories in to distinguish one cat group from another.
Now, another person produces a book that is completely different from my book other than chapter names and organisation.
Is this really copyright infringement? There is clearly some creativity that goes into putting together a list of cats, but it's pretty damn limited. Do you think that once I have organised cats in a certain way, that I should gain copyright protection over that particular organisation as well as the names? That is especially ludicrous to me.
Hmmm. Maybe I'm not remembering the details correctly but I though Oracle accused Googs of lifting swaths code instead of just element names.
Hmmm. Maybe I'm not remembering the details correctly but I though Oracle accused Googs of lifting swaths code instead of just element names.
They accused them of this, but they folded on those claims. The code at issue here is the declarative code which states the names, packages and input/output datatypes of functions. The total number of other lines (the code which actually implements the method) actually 'copied' was 9 (iirc) and they were actually written by the same person by mistake. Oracle agreed to $0 damages for this.
Even Judge Alsup said Schwartz's statements had no bearing on Google's lack of a license. That was a DOA argument propagated by those from planet Groklaw.
It has to do with the protected nature of the material itself. Since when does a chapter structure give me copyright on the structure as well as the names?
Except no one has copyrighted a chapter structure. Oracle is claiming copyright on the Structure, Sequence, and Organization of the 37 Java API packages. Java's SSO is what makes it unique from the infinite number of other possible Javas achieving the same functionality.
They accused them of this, but they folded on those claims. The code at issue here is the declarative code which states the names, packages and input/output datatypes of functions.
Declarative code is still copyrighted code and Google copied over 7000 lines of it verbatim. It's fascinating watching self proclaimed "developers" try and weasel around this fact.
Even Judge Alsup said Schwartz's statements had no bearing on Google's lack of a license. That was a DOA argument propagated by those from planet Groklaw.
The point is that the guy who ran the company that developed this didn't believe Oracle's arguments. You might claim Google needed a license but Sun clearly didn't and I'm definitely going to take their CEOs statements as detailing their corporate position.
How exactly is Oracle acting as anything but a troll here?
Quote:
Except no one has copyrighted a chapter structure. Oracle is claiming copyright on the Structure, Sequence, and Organization of the 37 Java API packages. Java's SSO is what makes it unique from the infinite number of other possible Javas achieving the same functionality.
The SSO is a chapter structure. It's a list of categories, subcategories, endpoints and brief metadata about those endpoints. The two are directly analogous. Java's SSO was supposed to be interchangeable in order to make each Java not unique. If each version used a differently named API, then only the core language would be the same. Sun's vision was for Java to be a universal language and that's why they welcomed Android even though it was not identical. The more that was the same the better, Oracle have simply decided that they'll use the courts as a knife to try and cut themselves off a piece of pie.
Declarative code is still copyrighted code and Google copied over 7000 lines of it verbatim. It's fascinating watching self proclaimed "developers" try and weasel around this fact.
Until the appeal is ruled in fact it is not copyrightable. That is the current reality of the situation as far as I am aware. Just because you believe it is (or should be) under the letter of the law doesn't mean you can claim that it is currently treated that way.
Google did copy this code, because in order to keep the same names (and lets be clear, these are as simple as 'java.util.Date') they are bound by the syntax of the language to using identical statements. That's why the discussion is over the SSO, and forgive me if I am being arrogant but I don't consider 'java.util.Date' to be particularly worthy of copyright even when it is combined into a few thousand declarations.
The point is that the guy who ran the company that developed this didn't believe Oracle's arguments. You might claim Google needed a license but Sun clearly didn't and I'm definitely going to take their CEOs statements as detailing their corporate position.
Why was Google negotiating with Sun for a license? No one disputes what Schwartz said. Trouble was it had no legal relevance.
Quote:
How exactly is Oracle acting as anything but a troll here?
That's just as inflammatory as saying "How exactly is Google acting as anything but a thief here?"
Quote:
The SSO is a chapter structure. It's a list of categories, subcategories, endpoints and brief metadata about those endpoints. The two are directly analogous. Java's SSO was supposed to be interchangeable in order to make each Java not unique. If each version used a differently named API, then only the core language would be the same. Sun's vision was for Java to be a universal language and that's why they welcomed Android even though it was not identical. The more that was the same the better, Oracle have simply decided that they'll use the courts as a knife to try and cut themselves off a piece of pie.
That's like saying the Lord of the Rings is _merely_ a list of words, sentences, and paragraphs with brief chapter titles about those paragraphs. Sun's vision for Java was a write-once, run anywhere platform free for anyone to use and and develop while Sun monetized the APIs.
Quote:
Until the appeal is ruled in fact it is not copyrightable. That is the current reality of the situation as far as I am aware. Just because you believe it is (or should be) under the letter of the law doesn't mean you can claim that it is currently treated that way.
You're absolutely right. I don't disagree. Alsup's ruling stands until the Appeals Court overturns it.
Quote:
Google did copy this code, because in order to keep the same names (and lets be clear, these are as simple as 'java.util.Date') they are bound by the syntax of the language to using identical statements. That's why the discussion is over the SSO, and forgive me if I am being arrogant but I don't consider 'java.util.Date' to be particularly worthy of copyright even when it is combined into a few thousand declarations.
You want to read Feist. Landmark copyright case about how much creativity is required for copyright protection. The Supreme Court says, "not much!"
Only attorneys are allowed to have opinions on or discuss the law?
When the EU Court of Justice (roughly equivalent to SCOTUS) considered the same question of API's and copyright they ruled they were in fact not eligible for copyright protection. It's hardly the clear and obvious copyright infringement a couple of posters may believe it to be. And yes I understand perfectly well that EU law doesn't govern US law. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/eus-top-court-apis-cant-be-copyrighted-would-monopolise-ideas/
First of all WINE didn't "copy" anything, it's a reverse engineering of the Windows API, and is perfectly legal. WINE went out of its way to avoid any copyright issues.
WINE is the perfect example for how one can replicate functionality without copying any code, without even copying the structure, sequence and organization of the Windows API.
What WINE did to Windows APIs isn't even remotely like what Google did to Java APIs.
If the Windows API declares a function like
bool showWindow (string x, int y);
doesn't Wine also need to implement a function called showWindow with a string as its first argument and an int as its second argument? In other words, doesn't Wine take the functions exactly as declared in the Windows API headers and substitute its own function bodies? If it doesn't do that, how do Windows programs run under Wine without modification or recompilation? How does Wine together with MinGW (also a 15 year old project) let one build Windows projects (see for example https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Mingw-w64_cross_compiler) if it doesn't replicate the structure and names of the functions and constants in the Windows API? If I want to compile the following program:
my system had better contain a header file called "windows.h" and it had better declare the MessageBox function as specified by the Win32 API.
The only thing that really matters is that Microsoft went out of its way to make WINE possible, and WINE doesn't infringe any of Microsoft's copyrights. Different companies have different API strategies. Duh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
When the EU Court of Justice (roughly equivalent to SCOTUS) considered the same question of API's and copyright they ruled they were in fact not eligible for copyright protection.
Nope, the EU ruled that the functionality of APIs isn't copyrightable. That's the same as in the US—functionality can't be copyrighted, however in the US, functionality never "trumps" expression. In other words, just because a piece of code is functional, it doesn't lose copyright protection for the expressive elements. But that was the essence of Alsup's ruling, and why it's being overturned.
Comments
Here's a pretty recent ruling having to do with Fair Use.
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/11/google-2/
In addition as the previous poster mentions, API's are essentially equivalent to names of chapters in an encyclopedia. Google supposedly didn't use the creative copy that followed the chapter name. They made use of the chapter organization only. How that affects copyright and fair use is still to be decided.
IMO Fair Use seems to have a good chance of succeeding if it comes to that as most of the original jurors reportedly found in Google favor on that question in the first trial.
What's your fair use theory then? That Android is educational?
Right but you misrepresent Sun's business model. They did not license the APIs. In fact they operated very similarly to Mono in this case. Please, tell me who benefits from having the API structure copyrightable? No small developer is going to benefit here as there need only be one prior example and it need not be registered as copyrighted. Therefore literally any developer using any organisation of an API (so most developers) could be liable with absolutely no way to even research it beforehand.
I get the feeling you are not a developer as you think this is ideological rather than pragmatic.
Nope, Sun made its money licensing Java APIs, they made their money doing exactly what Google didn't license Java for.
I'm not an attorney (or developer or even a student of the law) and hardly any more qualified than you to argue law or formulate a legal theory. Anything I would write would simply be parroting something I read on the internet. . . . again same as you. How qualified are our sources?
If you don't like the Mono example, what about Wine, the reimplementation of the Windows API which has certainly not been endorsed by MS?
First of all WINE didn't "copy" anything, it's a reverse engineering of the Windows API, and is perfectly legal. WINE went out of its way to avoid any copyright issues.
WINE is the perfect example for how one can replicate functionality without copying any code, without even copying the structure, sequence and organization of the Windows API.
What WINE did to Windows APIs isn't even remotely like what Google did to Java APIs.
It's a misleading view. Let's say I wrote a book on cats. I label each chapter with the name of the major cat species I am dealing with, include some brief details on their geographic distribution and add a few major categories in to distinguish one cat group from another.
Now, another person produces a book that is completely different from my book other than chapter names and organisation.
Is this really copyright infringement? There is clearly some creativity that goes into putting together a list of cats, but it's pretty damn limited. Do you think that once I have organised cats in a certain way, that I should gain copyright protection over that particular organisation as well as the names? That is especially ludicrous to me.
All of which has nothing to do with jungmark's comment about fair use.
Quote:
Nope, Sun made its money licensing Java APIs, they made their money doing exactly what Google didn't license Java for.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57420304-94/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-android-didnt-need-license-for-java-apis/
All of which has nothing to do with jungmark's comment about fair use.
It has to do with the protected nature of the material itself. Since when does a chapter structure give me copyright on the structure as well as the names?
Nope, Sun made its money licensing Java APIs, they made their money doing exactly what Google didn't license Java for.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/28/javaone_code_release/
Yup, Schwartz ran Sun right into the ground with his happy talk.
I'm not an attorney (or developer or even a student of the law) and hardly any more qualified than you to argue law or formulate a legal theory. Anything I would write would simply be parroting something I read on the internet. . . . again same as you. How qualified are our sources?
Only attorneys are allowed to have opinions on or discuss the law?
Hmmm. Maybe I'm not remembering the details correctly but I though Oracle accused Googs of lifting swaths code instead of just element names.
Hmmm. Maybe I'm not remembering the details correctly but I though Oracle accused Googs of lifting swaths code instead of just element names.
They accused them of this, but they folded on those claims. The code at issue here is the declarative code which states the names, packages and input/output datatypes of functions. The total number of other lines (the code which actually implements the method) actually 'copied' was 9 (iirc) and they were actually written by the same person by mistake. Oracle agreed to $0 damages for this.
Quote:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57420304-94/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-android-didnt-need-license-for-java-apis/
Even Judge Alsup said Schwartz's statements had no bearing on Google's lack of a license. That was a DOA argument propagated by those from planet Groklaw.
It has to do with the protected nature of the material itself. Since when does a chapter structure give me copyright on the structure as well as the names?
Except no one has copyrighted a chapter structure. Oracle is claiming copyright on the Structure, Sequence, and Organization of the 37 Java API packages. Java's SSO is what makes it unique from the infinite number of other possible Javas achieving the same functionality.
They accused them of this, but they folded on those claims. The code at issue here is the declarative code which states the names, packages and input/output datatypes of functions.
Declarative code is still copyrighted code and Google copied over 7000 lines of it verbatim. It's fascinating watching self proclaimed "developers" try and weasel around this fact.
Even Judge Alsup said Schwartz's statements had no bearing on Google's lack of a license. That was a DOA argument propagated by those from planet Groklaw.
The point is that the guy who ran the company that developed this didn't believe Oracle's arguments. You might claim Google needed a license but Sun clearly didn't and I'm definitely going to take their CEOs statements as detailing their corporate position.
How exactly is Oracle acting as anything but a troll here?
The SSO is a chapter structure. It's a list of categories, subcategories, endpoints and brief metadata about those endpoints. The two are directly analogous. Java's SSO was supposed to be interchangeable in order to make each Java not unique. If each version used a differently named API, then only the core language would be the same. Sun's vision was for Java to be a universal language and that's why they welcomed Android even though it was not identical. The more that was the same the better, Oracle have simply decided that they'll use the courts as a knife to try and cut themselves off a piece of pie.
Declarative code is still copyrighted code and Google copied over 7000 lines of it verbatim. It's fascinating watching self proclaimed "developers" try and weasel around this fact.
Until the appeal is ruled in fact it is not copyrightable. That is the current reality of the situation as far as I am aware. Just because you believe it is (or should be) under the letter of the law doesn't mean you can claim that it is currently treated that way.
Google did copy this code, because in order to keep the same names (and lets be clear, these are as simple as 'java.util.Date') they are bound by the syntax of the language to using identical statements. That's why the discussion is over the SSO, and forgive me if I am being arrogant but I don't consider 'java.util.Date' to be particularly worthy of copyright even when it is combined into a few thousand declarations.
The point is that the guy who ran the company that developed this didn't believe Oracle's arguments. You might claim Google needed a license but Sun clearly didn't and I'm definitely going to take their CEOs statements as detailing their corporate position.
Why was Google negotiating with Sun for a license? No one disputes what Schwartz said. Trouble was it had no legal relevance.
That's just as inflammatory as saying "How exactly is Google acting as anything but a thief here?"
That's like saying the Lord of the Rings is _merely_ a list of words, sentences, and paragraphs with brief chapter titles about those paragraphs. Sun's vision for Java was a write-once, run anywhere platform free for anyone to use and and develop while Sun monetized the APIs.
You're absolutely right. I don't disagree. Alsup's ruling stands until the Appeals Court overturns it.
You want to read Feist. Landmark copyright case about how much creativity is required for copyright protection. The Supreme Court says, "not much!"
When the EU Court of Justice (roughly equivalent to SCOTUS) considered the same question of API's and copyright they ruled they were in fact not eligible for copyright protection. It's hardly the clear and obvious copyright infringement a couple of posters may believe it to be. And yes I understand perfectly well that EU law doesn't govern US law.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/eus-top-court-apis-cant-be-copyrighted-would-monopolise-ideas/
First of all WINE didn't "copy" anything, it's a reverse engineering of the Windows API, and is perfectly legal. WINE went out of its way to avoid any copyright issues.
WINE is the perfect example for how one can replicate functionality without copying any code, without even copying the structure, sequence and organization of the Windows API.
What WINE did to Windows APIs isn't even remotely like what Google did to Java APIs.
If the Windows API declares a function like
bool showWindow (string x, int y);
doesn't Wine also need to implement a function called showWindow with a string as its first argument and an int as its second argument? In other words, doesn't Wine take the functions exactly as declared in the Windows API headers and substitute its own function bodies? If it doesn't do that, how do Windows programs run under Wine without modification or recompilation? How does Wine together with MinGW (also a 15 year old project) let one build Windows projects (see for example https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Mingw-w64_cross_compiler) if it doesn't replicate the structure and names of the functions and constants in the Windows API? If I want to compile the following program:
int WinMain(HINSTANCE,HINSTANCE,LPSTR,int)
{
MessageBox(0,"Hello, Windows","MinGW Test Program",MB_OK);
return 0;
}
(http://osix.net/modules/article/?id=670),
my system had better contain a header file called "windows.h" and it had better declare the MessageBox function as specified by the Win32 API.
my system had better contain a header file called "windows.h" and it had better declare the MessageBox function as specified by the Win32 API.
The only thing that really matters is that Microsoft went out of its way to make WINE possible, and WINE doesn't infringe any of Microsoft's copyrights. Different companies have different API strategies. Duh.
When the EU Court of Justice (roughly equivalent to SCOTUS) considered the same question of API's and copyright they ruled they were in fact not eligible for copyright protection.
Nope, the EU ruled that the functionality of APIs isn't copyrightable. That's the same as in the US—functionality can't be copyrighted, however in the US, functionality never "trumps" expression. In other words, just because a piece of code is functional, it doesn't lose copyright protection for the expressive elements. But that was the essence of Alsup's ruling, and why it's being overturned.