Reply to post: Re: Huh. I would have thought the money spent by Google and associates

Re: Huh. I would have thought the money spent by Google and associates

Google has the better case of course

There's no "of course" about it. Google are (this time) on the side of the angels - most people who aren't Oracle seem to agree about that - but whether what they're asking the court to decide is actually the most plausible interpretation of USC 17 is rather in doubt.

Anyone who thinks APIs aren't covered by copyright under US law is welcome to cite language in USC 17, or learned commentary thereon, to support that position. I provided the link above, for those who don't know how to use search engines. I admit, again, that I'm not a lawyer; but it does not seem at all clear to me either way whether APIs are excluded from the protection offered "computer programs" as a type of "literary work" by USC 17 Ch 1.

Now, Judge Alsup did make what I think is a good argument against including the API in copyright protection:

When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.

There are two essential points: The identifier names used in APIs are like other names, which generally aren't protected by copyright; and the material aspects of APIs (which would be things like what parameters a method takes) are often "the only way to express an idea or function".

The first point is pretty strong, but apparently not strong enough for the Federal Circuit. The second one I think is weaker, because generally an API represents not the only way to express a function, but simply the sensible way, or even just one choice among several. It's secondary considerations like existing practice that give value to the particular form of an API.

I'd very much like to see APIs excluded from protection, but I won't be at all surprised if it takes Congress amending USC 17 Ch 1 to do that. As Verrilli suggested, the best argument under existing law looks to be fair use.