Name: Supreme Court Hearing in Oracle v Google: Will the High Court Fix the Federal Circuit's Mess?
Brand: eff.org
SKU: eff-org-274
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Supreme Court Hearing in Oracle v Google: Will the High Court Fix the Federal Circuit's Mess?

preview

Email updates on news, actions,and events in your area.DEEPLINKS BLOGShare ItOn Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the long-running case of . We’ll be following closely, and looking for signs that the Court will reverse the Federal Circuit’s in this ground-breaking litigation. And then we’ll be waiting and hoping the Court will issue an opinion explaining that giving copyright protection to Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is a bad idea or, if that protection exists, that reimplementing them is a lawful fair use.To summarize the last nine years: Oracle claims a copyright on the Java APIs, and that Google infringed that copyright by using certain Java APIs in the Android OS. When it created the Android OS, Google wrote its own version of Java. But in order to allow developers to write their own programs for Android, Google used certain specifications of the Java APIs. Since APIs are, generally speaking, specifications that let programs talk to each other, it would .EFF has filed numerous and, more importantly, the pro-innovation stance it is taking in this case. As we’ve , the two Federal Circuit opinions are a disaster for innovation in computer software. Its first decision--that APIs are entitled to copyright protection--ran contrary to the views of most other courts and the long-held . Indeed, excluding APIs from copyright protection was essential to the development of modern computers and the Internet.Then the second decision made things worse. The Federal Circuit's first opinion had at least held that a jury should decide whether Google’s use of the Java APIs was fair, and in fact . But Oracle appealed again, and in 2018 the same three Federal Circuit judges the jury's verdict and held that Google had not engaged in fair use as a . Having gone to the trouble of sending this case to trial, at enormous expense to the parties and the court system, you might think the Federal Circuit would respect the jury’s decision. It did not. In the court’s view, the jury’s finding was simply advisory.That ruling created for any software developer thinking about reimplementing pre-existing APIs. If the first Federal Circuit opinion means that APIs are copyrightable, and the second opinion means that a jury isn’t allowed to decide that using a competitor’s APIs is a fair&nbsp;use, then there are few, if any, ways that a second competitor can enter a market with an API-compatible product.&nbsp;Much of the argument Wednesday may be focused on a more procedural question: whether the Federal Circuit overstepped when it substituted its judgment for that of the jury on the second round. The Supreme Court asked for additional briefing on the standard of review, i.e., whether the Federal Circuit should have simply considered whether the jury’s conclusion was reasonable and, if it was, allowed the verdict to stand.But we are hoping the final ruling takes a bolder step, and clarifies, once and for all, that the APIs at issue . A ruling for Google on fair use grounds would set a good precedent for the next developer of API-compatible software to argue that their use is also fair. But those arguments take time, money, lawyers, and, thanks to the outrageous penalties associated with copyright infringement, come with a substantial risk. And beyond all those knowable costs, wedging a layer of copyright permissions culture into API compatibility comes with serious unknowable costs: how many developers will abandon ideas for competitive software because the legal risks are too great? Huge corporations like Google can take those chances. Small startups – and their investors – will not.The Federal Circuit created a dangerous precedent that will only discourage competition and innovation just when we need it most. The Supreme Court can and should fix this mess.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Share ItStop us if you’ve heard these: piracy is driving artists out of business. The reason they are starving is because no one pays for things, just illegally downloads them. . These arguments are old and being to get support for rules...In response to the very real pressures that online news outlets are facing, Congress continues to believe the very flawed Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) is a magic solution. It is not. In fact, it is actively dangerous. And there’s a available....Much of what we do online involves reproducing copyrightable material, changing it, and/or making new works. Technically, pretty much every original tweet is copyrightable. And the vast majority of memes are based on copyrighted works. Your funny edits, mashups, and photoshopped jokes manipulate copyrighted works into new ones. Effective communication...It often feels like machine learning experts are running around with a hammer, looking at everything as a potential nail - they have a system that does cool things and is fun to work on, and they go in search of things to use it for. But what if we...California residents finally have a law designed to dismantle some of the secrecy around domestic acquisitions of warzone surveillance equipment.The weapons of the United States military—drones, mobile command centers, sound cannons, and more—have been handed off to local law enforcement for years. The transfers have equipped police departments with the...The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued a long-awaited judgment on the compatibility of the EU Copyright Directive’s filtering requirements with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The ruling recognizes the tension between copyright filters and the right to freedom of expression, but falls...The joy of tinkering, making, and sharing is part of the human condition. In modern times, this creative freedom too often is stifled by secrecy as a means of monetization - from non-compete laws to quashing people’s right to repair the products they’ve already paid for.Adam Savage—the maker extraordinaire best...Copyright filters are having a bit of a moment in Washington D.C. The with a process to determine what, if anything, constitutes a standard technical measure (STM) that platforms would have to accommodate. And, if that proves too onerous, ...Today, EFF joins a diverse coalition of civil society and tech companies to call on Congress to pass strong anti-monopoly rules for the Internet. We do this because it has long been EFF’s belief that users have the right to make their own choices—and the current state of Big Tech...When a pipeline bursts, journalists might want to investigate whether the pipeline complied with federal regulations. When a toy is recalled, parents want to know whether its maker followed child safety rules. When a fire breaks out, homeowners and communities want to know whether the building complied with fire safety...Share It

Email updates on news, actions,and events in your area.DEEPLINKS BLOGShare ItOn Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the long-running case of . We’ll be following closely, and looking for signs that the Court will reverse the Federal Circuit’s in this ground-breaking litigation. And then we’ll be waiting and hoping the Court will issue an opinion explaining that giving copyright protection to Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is a bad idea or, if that protection exists, that reimplementing them is a lawful fair use.To summarize the last nine years: Oracle...

public

Corynne McSherry

We're the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We defend your civil liberties in a digital world.

Supreme Court Hearing in Oracle v Google: Will the High Court Fix the Federal Circuit's Mess?

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS