Supreme Court releases Opinion on GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

14 Responses

  1. Jaybird says:

    This is a BFD. I think I like it.

    But it changed some things. I think it means that there will be more of an emphasis on Trade Secrets… and if I game that out in my head, that means that there’s going to be a *LOT* more emphasis on Non-Competes.

    In the short term, however, I think that this just loosened a lot of stuff that was previously bound.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

      This is, I think, simply reinforcement of a principle established in the 1980s and 1990s UNIX cases: you can’t copyright the names and types of an API that is publicly disclosed (ie, the header files). IIRC, in this case Google built a tool that compiled standard Java into byte code for a different virtual machine. They reimplemented much of the Java standard libraries, using the same names and typing, so that people could use their old source code in the new environment. Oracle has never accused them of copying the code behind the API, acknowledging that was done using a proper clean-room process.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

        So it’s just hammering down something that was already the case but there was uncertainty?

        So all that happened was uncertainty was removed?

        That’s less of a big deal… but I think that that also means that stuff that was deliberately moving slowly can now deliberately speed up. A little.Report

        • Doctor Jay in reply to Jaybird says:

          I agree with and endorse what Michael is saying. This is more back to Business As Usual in the industry. That Oracle would even claim this as a violation seemed really off the rails. Of course, the case has disrupted everything for its duration.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Doctor Jay says:

            It apparently applies to *ALL* APIs.

            Is that how it was before?

            Report

            • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

              I believe that the previous cases were pretty clear-cut. I have seen claims that an actual example used by the appeals court said that

              public static int max(int x, int y);

              could be copyrighted and require licensing, although I haven’t gone back and verified that. At least one way of interpreting any strong statements in the SCOTUS opinion is a “Don’t make this mistake again!” message to the DC Circuit Court.Report

      • veronica d in reply to Michael Cain says:

        I saw a fair number of people who thought that Oracle’s case was an obvious loser, and thus wondered what was motivating them. I guess we should take such opinions with a grain of salt, because who can really predict what a court will decide. I suppose some very knowledgeable lawyers can, in some cases. But how can I, a layperson, distinguish a knowledgeable lawyer from an agenda driven hack?

        In any case, I find the statement plausible, particularly in hindsight, so what was motivating Oracle? That said, if someone suggested that Oracle was motivated by pure naked evil, I wouldn’t discount them.

        Anyway, I’m pleased by this, and not just from a self-interested {my employer was involved} perspective. Software copyrights and patents are a social cancer.Report

      • Of course I got the legal details wrong. You can copyright header files, but copying them for compatibility purposes falls under fair use.Report

  2. No surprise that the two on the wrong side were Thomas and Alito.Report