Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Honestly, the most concerning part of the whole thing is how much of a mess CAFC has made of the whole process. The court ruled correctly originally that APIs are not subject to copyright. CAFC threw that out and ordered the court to have a jury determine the fair use question. The jury found it to be fair use, and even though CAFC had ordered the issue be heard by a jury, it now says 'meh, we disagree with the jury.' That's... bizarre."
Posted Mar 27, 2018 19:22 UTC (Tue)
by jonsmirl (guest, #7874)
[Link] (11 responses)
Patents are a bad enough curse on the software industry, if APIs suddenly and retroactively switch to needing licenses the entire industry could collapse from the legal turmoil.
Alsop got it right the fist time. APIs are functional and they should not be subject to copyright. That is the ruling in the EU also.
Posted Mar 27, 2018 19:36 UTC (Tue)
by clopez (guest, #66009)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 28, 2018 12:16 UTC (Wed)
by xav (guest, #18536)
[Link] (1 responses)
... or Oracle :)
> for using the POSIX API. Its going to be fun (to not say depressing)
Posted Mar 28, 2018 14:39 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Posted Mar 27, 2018 22:39 UTC (Tue)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link] (7 responses)
Such efforts wouldn't be that rewarding. If the company didn't expect that their APIs were protected by copyright, they wouldn't have registered the copyrights. Damages for unregistered copyright infringement are limited to actual damages [1].
Even actual damages would be difficult to calculate because there wouldn't be any history of licensing revenue. The plaintiff would have to resort to estimating a count of violations and a fair licensing price. Also, attorney's fees aren't recoverable in the actual damages scenario (see same source), so actual damages -- which are already quite limited -- would have to substantially exceed litigation expenses to make it worthwhile.
I'm not a lawyer, but I frequently work with software licensing.
[1] http://www.patent-trademark-law.com/copyright-articles/ca...
Posted Mar 27, 2018 23:01 UTC (Tue)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Mar 28, 2018 9:31 UTC (Wed)
by anton (subscriber, #25547)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Mar 28, 2018 13:56 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
Cheers,
Posted Mar 29, 2018 8:36 UTC (Thu)
by shiftee (subscriber, #110711)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Mar 30, 2018 11:27 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
If IBM win, Oracle are toast.
If IBM loses, we're back to the status quo ante (although if IBM don't include patents so it avoids the CAFC, it'll probably go to the Supreme Court as "a conflict between appeal courts").
Either way, Oracle loses, IBM is no worse off.
Cheers,
Posted Mar 30, 2018 11:56 UTC (Fri)
by shiftee (subscriber, #110711)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 30, 2018 14:14 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Really, if this case would come to pass IBM would become the "endpoint" most likely: IBM did many things modern companies rave about when said companies didn't exist and their founders were in diapers!
Posted Mar 28, 2018 5:03 UTC (Wed)
by bokr (guest, #58369)
[Link] (5 responses)
I think if you want to control making plugs you need a patent,
Didn't Amdahl prove the principle that there's a right to compete
Weren't the telcos eventually denied the power to control what
So Oracle has a copyright on a software blueprint that describes
I hope google takes them to the Supreme Court, and incidentally
Posted Mar 28, 2018 9:33 UTC (Wed)
by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935)
[Link] (1 responses)
In the long run this _might_ be the best outcome, especially given the Federal Circuit's track record with the Supreme Court isn't exactly something to be proud of.
Posted Apr 5, 2018 14:36 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Even better if SCOTUS ruled that, all patent claims having been dropped before the initial verdict, the case should never have gone to Federal Circuit in the first place. Vacates all Federal rulings and kicks back to the District Court for further action ... :-)
Otherwise it means that anybody can slip a patent claim into a court case, abandon it, and then appeal to the Federal Circuit instead of the area Circuit.
Cheers,
Posted Mar 29, 2018 12:36 UTC (Thu)
by AnimeLife (guest, #116014)
[Link] (2 responses)
But on the otherside, I think java apps are supposed to run on any platform and Android SDK / APKs exactly do the opposite, making them available only on one *commercial* platform controlled by one company. Did google invest any effort to make them compatible on other systems, atleast on GNU / Linux, provide alternate runtimes to run APKs on PCs or anything like that? NO. So, in my opinion this suits them.
Posted Mar 29, 2018 19:51 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 29, 2018 22:24 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
The Android stuff is simply a Java runtime and development kit optimised for the platform it's meant to run on, namely Android phones.
Cheers,
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
I think the main lever is not the damages that they can demand for past infringements, but the legal possibilities that the supposed copyright holder has for the future. In the present case Oracle could tax all Android phone makers, and maybe all app writers, and eventually all other industries where Java is used. That non-Oracle software represents an investment of billions of dollars, and if such a copyright actually exists in the USA, Oracle could make it mostly worthless there, if they wanted.
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Wol
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Wol
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs (Techdirt)
A copyrighted API spec is like copyrighted blueprint for an adaptor plug, ISTM
not the depicted plug.
and even there, control can be judged anti-competitive.
by making plug-compatible equipment? (IBM mainframe compatibles in his case).
was plugged into their jacks, other than electrical compatibility?
an adaptor plug whose back side plugs into GNU libraries that
plug into the linux kernel. And they want to assert some kind of right
to prevent making compatible adaptor plugs and programs (java) that
plug into them?
forcefully reminds everyone that patents and copyrights were
explicitly intended "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
not to hinder it, as is the net effect of this kind of legal gaming.
A copyrighted API spec is like copyrighted blueprint for an adaptor plug, ISTM
A copyrighted API spec is like copyrighted blueprint for an adaptor plug, ISTM
Wol
A copyrighted API spec is like copyrighted blueprint for an adaptor plug, ISTM
A copyrighted API spec is like copyrighted blueprint for an adaptor plug, ISTM
A copyrighted API spec is like copyrighted blueprint for an adaptor plug, ISTM
Wol