Oracle Files Response To Google and API Copyright - We Are All Doomed; i-Programmer, February 17, 2020

Mike James, i-Programmer; Oracle Files Response To Google and API Copyright - We Are All Doomed

"If I invent an API, of course I want it to be copyright. If I use an API then the last thing I want is for it to be copyright."

EFF Asks Supreme Court To Reverse Dangerous Rulings About API Copyrightability and Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 13, 2020

Press Release, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);

EFF Asks Supreme Court To Reverse Dangerous Rulings About API Copyrightability and Fair Use

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that functional aspects of Oracle’s Java programming language are not copyrightable, and even if they were, employing them to create new computer code falls under fair use protections.

The court is reviewing a long-running lawsuit Oracle filed against Google, which claimed that Google’s use of certain Java application programming interfaces (APIs) in its Android operating system violated Oracle’s copyrights. The case has far-reaching implications for innovation in software development, competition, and interoperability.

In a brief filed today, EFF argues that the Federal Circuit, in ruling APIs were copyrightable, ignored clear and specific language in the copyright statute that excludes copyright protection for procedures, processes, and methods of operation."

Supreme Court will hear Google’s appeal in massive copyright suit brought by Oracle; CNBC, November 15, 2019

Tucker Higgins, CNBC; Supreme Court will hear Google’s appeal in massive copyright suit brought by Oracle

"The Supreme Court said on Friday that it will hear a dispute between tech giants Oracle and Google in a blockbuster case that could lead to billions of dollars in fines and shape copyright law in the internet era.

The case concerns 11,500 lines of code that Google was accused of copying from Oracle’s Java programming language. Google deployed the code in Android, now the most popular mobile operating system in the world. Oracle sued Google in 2010 alleging that the use of its code in Android violated copyright law...

Underlying the legal issues in the case is a technical dispute over the nature of the code that Google used. Google has said that the code was essentially functional — akin to copying the placement of keys on a QWERTY keyboard. Oracle maintains that the code, part of Java’s application programming interface, or API, is a creative product, “like the chapter headings and topic sentences of an elaborate literary work.”

Google loses Android battle and could owe Oracle billions of dollars; CNN Money, March 27, 2018

Danielle Wiener-Bronner, CNN Money; Google loses Android battle and could owe Oracle billions of dollars

"Google isn't the only company that stands to lose from this decision. Many others rely on open-source software to develop their own platforms. Tuesday's ruling means that some will either have pay to license certain software or develop their own from scratch.

"The decision is going to create a significant shift in how software is developed worldwide," Carani said. "It really means that copyright in this context has teeth."

"Sometimes free is not really free," he added."

Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle; Ars Technica, 2/11/17

David Kravets, Ars Technica; 

Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

"Google successfully made its case to a jury last year that its use of Java APIs in Android was "fair use." A San Francisco federal jury rejected Oracle's claim that the mobile system infringed Oracle's copyrights.

But Oracle isn't backing down. Late Friday, the company appealed the high-profile verdict to a federal appeals court."

Why Google's victory in a copyright fight with Oracle is a big deal; Vox, 5/26/16

Timothy B. Lee, Vox; Why Google's victory in a copyright fight with Oracle is a big deal:

"Google's version of Java didn't reuse any code from Oracle's version. But to ensure compatibility, Google's version used functions with the same names and functionality.

This practice was widely viewed as legal within the software world at the time Google did it, but Oracle sued, arguing that this was copyright infringement. Oracle argued that the list of Java function names and features constitutes a creative work, and that Google infringed Oracle's copyright when it included functions with the same names and features.

Google argued that the list of function names, known as an application programming interface (API), was not protected by copyright law.

Google's defenders pointed to a landmark 1995 ruling in which an appeals court held that the software company Borland had not infringed copyright when it created a spreadsheet program whose menus were organized in the same way as the menus in the more popular spreadsheet Lotus 1-2-3.

The court held that the order of Lotus 1-2-3 menu items was an uncopyrightable "method of operation." And it concluded that giving Lotus exclusive ownership over its menu structure would harm the public...

Google believed that its own copying was directly analogous to what Borland had done. There were thousands of programmers with expertise in writing Java programs. By designing its platform to respond to the same set of programming commands as Oracle's Java system, Google allowed Java programmers to become Android programmers with minimal training — just as Borland's decision to copy Lotus's menu structure avoided unnecessary training for seasoned Lotus 1-2-3 users."

Google Prevails as Jury Rebuffs Oracle in Code Copyright Case; New York Times, 5/26/16

Nick Wingfield and Quentin hardy, New York Times; Google Prevails as Jury Rebuffs Oracle in Code Copyright Case:

"Some lawyers cautioned against viewing the verdict as a green light for the type of software development Google performed, saying that the earlier federal appeals court decision validated the idea that A.P.I.s can be copyrighted.

“I don’t think the industry can sit back and rely on this decision and exhale and say these things won’t be protected,” said Christopher Carani, a lawyer at McAndrews, Held & Malloy. “I think what you’re still going to see is a lot more attention paid to securing approval to use other copyrights before the fact.”

John Bergmayer, a senior staff attorney at Public Knowledge, a consumer rights group, cheered the verdict in a statement, but said he remained troubled by the implications of the earlier court decision. “Other courts of appeal should reject the Federal Circuit’s mistaken finding of copyrightability,” he said. “For now, though, the jury’s verdict is a welcome dose of common sense.”"

Google and Oracle's $9.3 Billion Fair Use Fight Starts Today, Here's a Guide; Fortune, 5/9/16

Jeff John Roberts, Fortune; Google and Oracle's $9.3 Billion Fair Use Fight Starts Today, Here's a Guide:

"Why are Google and Oracle in court?

The case is about intellectual property. It began six years ago when Oracle sued Google for using APIs tied to Java (more on this below) without permission. Google won at an initial trial in 2012 when a jury found the company didn’t infringe Oracle’s patents, and a judge concluded the APIs didn’t qualify for copyright protection.

But in a ruling that shocked the tech community, an appeals court found in 2014 that Oracle’s APIs were indeed covered by copyright. The ruling also kicked the case back to the lower court to determine whether Google’s use of the APIs counted as a “fair use.” Now, at this second trial, a jury will look at the fair use question."

Oracle will seek a staggering $9.3 billion in 2nd trial against Google; ArsTechnica.com, 3/29/16

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.com; Oracle will seek a staggering $9.3 billion in 2nd trial against Google:

"In a second go-round of its copyright lawsuit against Google, Oracle is hoping to land a knockout blow. A damages report filed last week in federal court reveals that the enterprise software giant will ask for $9.3 billion in damages.

In its lawsuit, Oracle argues that Google infringed copyrights related to Java when it used 37 Java API packages to create its Android mobile operating system.

The damages it's seeking aren't just more than the Java API packages are worth—it's far more than Oracle paid for the entirety of Sun Microsystems, which was purchased in 2009 for $5.6 billion. By way of comparison, Google parent company Alphabet earned $4.9 billion in profits last quarter, according to IDG News, which reported on the Oracle figures yesterday.

Such a result would be far and away the biggest copyright verdict ever."

The DOJ's Copyright Fetish Might Screw Up the Internet's Future; Forbes, 6/9/15

Marvin Ammori, Forbes; The DOJ's Copyright Fetish Might Screw Up the Internet's Future:

"The DOJ asked the Supreme Court not to review a lower court decision that said API interfaces are copyrightable. But that decision threatens new and existing websites and devices that we all rely on. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will ignore the DOJ’s recommendation and eventually reverses the lower court.

“But what’s an API?” you ask. API stands for “application programming interface” and is essentially a way for software developers to interact with information on other sites or on their own sites. When you go to a restaurant’s website and see an embedded map of the location, the restaurant’s developers didn’t create the map from scratch. They merely used an API—perhaps the Google Maps or Mapbox API—to get a map for the location. An API lets one company build on another’s innovation; we don’t all have to create a global mapping company merely to give directions to our restaurants. An API obviously has two parts: the interface and the code behind it. The interface is essentially a shortcut available to others (imagine “1899 M St. NW location” or some other shortcut that probably every map developer already knows) and the code behind it is all the complicated computer lines that create the visual map.

The case at issue involves whether the interfaces—just the shortcuts, not the code behind it—are copyrightable. It arises out of a lawsuit between Oracle and Google concerning the Java programming language. Computer programmers use a variety of “languages” to create websites and apps—they’re called Ruby on Rails, Python, Erlang, C+, Basic, and so on. Some languages are more popular than others, the same way English is more popular than Icelandic or Dutch."

Appeals court considers Oracle's Java copyright claims; CNet, 12/4/13

Steven Musil, CNet; Appeals court considers Oracle's Java copyright claims: "A US appeals court on Wednesday considered whether Oracle should be afforded copyright protection over certain portions of the Java programming language in a case that is being closely watched by software developers. The appeal, being heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, is the latest chapter in the company's long-running patent and copyright battle over Google's use of Java application programming interfaces (APIs) in Android. Oracle sued Google in 2010, alleging that Google's use of 37 Java APIs in its mobile operating system constituted patent and copyright infringement. Google argued it was free to use them because the Java programming language is free to use and the APIs are required to use the language. Oracle countered that Google knowingly used the APIs without a license from Sun Microsystems, which Oracle purchased in 2010."

Oracle Owed Interest by SAP in Infringement Case, Judge Rules; Bloomberg, 12/29/10

Joel Rosenblatt, Bloomberg; Oracle Owed Interest by SAP in Infringement Case, Judge Rules:

"Oracle Corp. must be paid interest on the $1.3 billion copyright-infringement jury verdict it won against SAP AG last month, a federal judge said."

SAP Ordered to Pay Oracle $1.3 Billion; New York Times, 11/24/10

Verne G. Kopytoff, New York Times; SAP Ordered to Pay Oracle $1.3 Billion:

"A clash of technology titans and two of the most powerful executives in Silicon Valley ended on Tuesday with a $1.3 billion federal jury award against SAP for stealing software from Oracle to try to woo away customers.

The award, the largest ever for copyright infringement, comes as big technology companies, including Apple, Google and Motorola, have increasingly resorted to the courts to resolve patent and intellectual property disputes instead of quietly working out a deal."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/24oracle.html?hp

Google: Android doesn't infringe Oracle's copyrights; ArsTechnica.com, 11/13/10

Ryan Paul, ArsTechnica.com; Google: Android doesn't infringe Oracle's copyrights:

"Google has also weighed in on Oracle's more recent claim that Android's Java code infringes on Oracle's copyrights in addition to patents."

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/11/google-android-doesnt-infringe-oracles-copyrights.ars

Trial Opens Over Damages in Oracle Copyright Case With SAP; New York Times, 11/3/10

Verne G. Kopytoff, New York Times; Trial Opens Over Damages in Oracle Copyright Case With SAP:

"The dispute between the software giants Oracle and SAP, in one of the most closely watched court cases in Silicon Valley history, is not over whether SAP engaged in a copyright infringement scheme, but over how much damage was done to Oracle."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/technology/03oracle.html?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse