There has been no lack of ink spilled on the legal battle betweenOracle and Google surrounding Google s use of Java APIs in itsAndroid OS. And no wonder, what with testimony by both Larrys (Pageand Ellison), claims of damages up to $1 billion, and rampantspeculation that a ruling in Oracle s favor could change the way we all use the Internet. Today, we got our first taste of wherethis all might be heading: the jury came back with a finding that,assuming APIs are subject to copyright, Google has infringed atleast some of Oracle's. But significant outstanding questionsremain, including whether copyright can in fact apply (the judgealone will decide this) and whether Google made a legal fair use ofthose APIs (we believe it did). What s really at stake here? This first stage of the trialconcerns whether Oracle can claim a copyright on Java s APIs and,if so, whether Google infringes those copyrights.
(In 2010, Oraclebought Sun Microsystems, which developed Java.) When it implementedthe Android OS, Google wrote its own version of Java. But in orderto allow developers to write their own programs for Android, Googlerelied on Java s APIs. (For non-developers out there, APIs(Application Programming Interfaces) are specifications that allowprograms to communicate with each other. So when you read anarticle online, and click on the icon to share that article viaTwitter, for example, you are using a Twitter API that the site sdeveloper got directly from Twitter.) Here s the problem: Treating APIs as copyrightable would have aprofound negative impact on interoperability, and, therefore,innovation.
APIs are ubiquitous and fundamental to all kinds ofprogram development. It is safe to say that all software developersuse APIs to make their software work with other software. Forexample, the developers of an application like Firefox use APIs tomake their application work with various OSes by asking the OS todo things like make network connections, open files, and displaywindows on the screen. Allowing a party to assert control over APIsmeans that a party can determine who can make compatible andinteroperable software, an idea that is anathema to those whocreate the software we rely on everyday. Put clearly, the developerof a platform should not be able to control add-on softwaredevelopment for that platform. Xlpe Power Cable
Take, for example, a free and open source project like Samba, whichruns the shared folders and network drives in millions oforganizations. If Samba could be held to have infringed theMicrosoft s copyright in its SMB protocol and API, with which itinter-operates, it could find itself on the hook for astronomicaldamages or facing an injunction requiring that it stop providingits API and related services, leaving users to fend for themselves. Another example is the AOL instant messaging program, which used aproprietary API. AOL tried to prevent people from makingalternative IM programs that could speak to AOL's users. China Flame Retardant Cables
Despitethat, others successfully built their own implementations of theAPI from the client's side. If copyright had given AOL a weapon toprevent interoperability by its competitors, the outcome for thepublic would have been unfortunate. Setting aside the practical consequences, there s a perfectly goodlegal reason not to treat APIs as copyrightable material: they arepurely functional. The law is already clear that copyright cannotcover programming languages, which are merely mediums for creation(instead, copyright may potentially cover what one creativelywrites in that language). Low Voltage Power Cables Manufacturer
Indeed, the European Court of Justicecame to just that conclusion last week. (Ironically enough, when Sun Microsystems was anindependent company, one of its lawyers wrote amicus briefs arguing that interoperability concerns should limit copyrightprotection for computer programs.) Improvidently granting copyright protection to functional APIswould allow companies to dangerously hold up importantinteroperability functionality that developers and users rely oneveryday. Let s hope the judge agrees. Julie Samuels is a staff attorney at the Electronic FrontierFoundation.
This article is reproduced under a Creative Commons licence.
(In 2010, Oraclebought Sun Microsystems, which developed Java.) When it implementedthe Android OS, Google wrote its own version of Java. But in orderto allow developers to write their own programs for Android, Googlerelied on Java s APIs. (For non-developers out there, APIs(Application Programming Interfaces) are specifications that allowprograms to communicate with each other. So when you read anarticle online, and click on the icon to share that article viaTwitter, for example, you are using a Twitter API that the site sdeveloper got directly from Twitter.) Here s the problem: Treating APIs as copyrightable would have aprofound negative impact on interoperability, and, therefore,innovation.
APIs are ubiquitous and fundamental to all kinds ofprogram development. It is safe to say that all software developersuse APIs to make their software work with other software. Forexample, the developers of an application like Firefox use APIs tomake their application work with various OSes by asking the OS todo things like make network connections, open files, and displaywindows on the screen. Allowing a party to assert control over APIsmeans that a party can determine who can make compatible andinteroperable software, an idea that is anathema to those whocreate the software we rely on everyday. Put clearly, the developerof a platform should not be able to control add-on softwaredevelopment for that platform. Xlpe Power Cable
Take, for example, a free and open source project like Samba, whichruns the shared folders and network drives in millions oforganizations. If Samba could be held to have infringed theMicrosoft s copyright in its SMB protocol and API, with which itinter-operates, it could find itself on the hook for astronomicaldamages or facing an injunction requiring that it stop providingits API and related services, leaving users to fend for themselves. Another example is the AOL instant messaging program, which used aproprietary API. AOL tried to prevent people from makingalternative IM programs that could speak to AOL's users. China Flame Retardant Cables
Despitethat, others successfully built their own implementations of theAPI from the client's side. If copyright had given AOL a weapon toprevent interoperability by its competitors, the outcome for thepublic would have been unfortunate. Setting aside the practical consequences, there s a perfectly goodlegal reason not to treat APIs as copyrightable material: they arepurely functional. The law is already clear that copyright cannotcover programming languages, which are merely mediums for creation(instead, copyright may potentially cover what one creativelywrites in that language). Low Voltage Power Cables Manufacturer
Indeed, the European Court of Justicecame to just that conclusion last week. (Ironically enough, when Sun Microsystems was anindependent company, one of its lawyers wrote amicus briefs arguing that interoperability concerns should limit copyrightprotection for computer programs.) Improvidently granting copyright protection to functional APIswould allow companies to dangerously hold up importantinteroperability functionality that developers and users rely oneveryday. Let s hope the judge agrees. Julie Samuels is a staff attorney at the Electronic FrontierFoundation.
This article is reproduced under a Creative Commons licence.