White House Advises That APIs ARE Copyrightable
White House Advises That APIs ARE Copyrightable
Written by Sue Gee   
Thursday, 28 May 2015

The argument between Google and Oracle about Java just goes on. Now we have a brief from the White House that affirms that APIs are copyrightable - which is very good for some and very bad for a much larger group.

 

supremecourtbanner

 

Oracle doesn't like the fact that Google has used Java as the basis for Android. Despite the fact that this single act has made the language more important than ever, Oracle wants to damage Android using whatever resources it can find - which roughly comes down to patents and copyright.

In the first trial a coding Judge, Judge William Alsup who turned out to be a programmer himself, came to the conclusion that Oracle's claim of copyright on such trivial code was simply silly, but Oracle had the decision reversed on appeal. Google argued, and still holds, that APIs are not copyrightable because they are a method of operation or sytem that allows programs to communicate. 

Currently the Supreme Court is considering the case and the Solicitor General of the United States (the top lawyer representing the U.S. government) has decided that APIs are copyrightable.  The key point is that:

"Both declaring code and implementing code ultimately perform the same practical function: They instruct a computer to work. The declaring code tells the computer to call up the implementing code, and the implementing code tells the computer to perform an operation, such as executing a sorting algorithm."

Even more precise is the statement that:

"Declaring code may be one step further removed than implementing code from the ultimate operation that a computer performs."

In other words, an API is more expressive and hence copyrightable than the code behind it that actually does the job. You may have invented some wonderful algorithm, but the expression how how you access the algorithm is more copyrightable than the implementation of your algorithm - which if novel is patentable, but perhaps not copyrightable. 

supremecourt2

 

This is all very strange. 

The Supreme Court doesn't have to take notice of the brief and could still decide  for Google, but this now seems increasingly unlikely. The reason is simply that in doing so it would damage the wider application of copyright to written expression.

If APIs are subject to copyright, things suddenly get very complicated in terms of what you can do and cannot do. You might be able to reproduce the inner workings of a service, but you could not create an API that was identical and hence compatible with the existing APIs. 

This is surely not how progress happens?

 

anndroidlaw

Banner


Eclipse Preferred IDE For Java
12/09/2017

Two recent polls from Opensource.com asked Java and Python developers respectively to cast their votes for their favorite open source IDE. Eclipse emerged as the clear winner for Java and was in secon [ ... ]



Developer Edition Of FaunaDB Enters Preview
31/08/2017

There's a new preview version of FaunaDB Developer Edition that provides a free to use, single-node, plug-and-play version of the database. FaunaDB has been available as a managed, serverless, cloud d [ ... ]


More News

 

 
 

 

blog comments powered by Disqus

Last Updated ( Thursday, 28 May 2015 )
 
 
Banner

   
Banner
RSS feed of news items only
I Programmer News
Copyright © 2017 i-programmer.info. All Rights Reserved.
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.