Reply to post: Re: @jilocasin There is *no* IP to take advantage of.

Reusing software 'interfaces' is fine, Google tells Supreme Court, pleads: Think of the devs!

jilocasin
Boffin

Re: @jilocasin There is *no* IP to take advantage of.

Sorry Ian,

I have read the facts and the case law since this farce's inception. There is a fundamental difference between *source code* and an *API*. It is only by conflating one for the other that any of the cases cited by either Oracle or the appellate court would be anywhere close to on point. Personally I don't believe source code should be copyrightable either, but that's neither here nor there.

An API is a method or process, it has to be the same for interoperability. As I quoted earlier, methods are expressedly excluded from copyright protection.

--------------------------------

An API:

int add(int a, int b)

---------------------------------

Some source code:

int add(int first, int second){

return first + second;

}

---------------------------------

int add(int a, int n){

int result = a;

if(n > 0){

for(int i=0;i<n;i++){

result = result + 1;

}

}

}

---------------------------------

The first isn't copywritable, either of the source code examples _could_ be protected by copyright. So a method isn't while a *particular expression* of that idea can be. Your reference to a 'clean room version' is misplaced in this instance. That only applies to _patents_ NOT _copyrights_, the subject of this case.

As to your remaining points;

Sun released three types of Java; Java EE, Java SE, Java ME. Sun had already released Java SE source code under various permissive licenses. Sun wanted mobile developers to use Java ME for mobile, Google rightly concluded that it wasn't fit for purpose. So Google based it's Android language on Apache's Harmony ( https://harmony.apache.org/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony ). As long as Google didn't call the result 'JAVA' that was perfectly legal. Lots of companies did the same. They threw out the portions they didn't want, added android specific bits and wrote their own bytecode and runtime. The result being a language that would be familiar to existing Java developers and would run on their new mobile device.

It's the same way that database developers can run *most* of the same SQL statements across different database systems. "SELECT * FROM table; " will work on any database that supports the SQL standard. Oracle, IBM, MySql, PostgreSQL, etc. How each database *implements* that statement in code may be different, but no one is allowed to monopolize the;

SELECT command followed by one or more fields, followed by FROM followed by the table, syntax.

Now having said all of that, Google did copy a very small amount of testing code that got released. Google argued that the amount, in light of the code base was allowed as it was 'de minimus'. But that's an entirely separate issue from whether or not API's should be allowed to be copyrighted.

You do yourself a disservice accusing me, or anyone for that matter, of down voting your posts. I'm not saying that this one shouldn't be down voted (lacking the understanding you accuse others of, confusing such simple concepts as patents and copyrights and making ad hominum attacks ;> ).

Hopefully you read things more closely yourself in the future.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020