Name: How the Supreme Court saved the software industry from API copyrights
Brand: arstechnica.com
SKU: arstechnica-com-346
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

How the Supreme Court saved the software industry from API copyrights

preview

Google and Oracle's last October left opponents of API copyrights extremely nervous. For the previous decade, Google had been arguing in lower courts that it didn't infringe copyright law when it re-implemented Java for use in Android. Google had lost—twice—at the appellate level.Last October, justices for the nation's highest court seemed skeptical as well. Not only were they asking Google's lawyer, Tom Goldstein, a lot of tough questions, a number of them didn't seem to even understand what an API was. That seemed like a bad sign for Google because the distinction between code that declares an API and code that implements it was fundamental to Google's argument.In an , Cornell legal scholar James Grimmelman argued that Goldstein had botched the case."He did an abysmal job," Grimmelman told me. "At the level of nuance he was willing to get into, his case was a loser."But Grimmelman now admits he was wrong. "I owe an apology to Tom Goldstein," he told me on Monday. "I had my criticisms of the job he did at oral argument, but he did a good enough job to win."By a 6-2 vote, the nation's highest court held that Google's copying of Oracle's Java API was fair use. The ruling means Google won't have to pay billions of dollars in damages to Oracle. It also has huge implications for the broader software industry."It's a minor miracle we got an opinion that reached the right result with pretty sound reasoning despite not one of the justices being able to explain how an API works," Grimmelman said.Prior to the ruling, Microsoft filed an urging the Supreme Court to side with Google. The brief, which was cited in Monday's ruling, provides one of the best explanations of the stakes in the case."Developers rely on sharing, modifying, and enhancing previously developed code to create new products and develop new functionality," Microsoft wrote. "Both a cause and effect of this collaborative development is the increased demand for seamless interoperability and compatibility—i.e., the ability of different products, devices, and applications to communicate and work together without effort from the consumer."If APIs became subject to copyright protection, it would become much easier for an incumbent software provider to lock its customers into a proprietary standard. That would create more compatibility headaches for consumers, and it would make it harder for software startups to break in to established software markets. Opponents of API copyrights also warned that a ruling for Oracle could unleash a flood of API copyright lawsuits similar to the patent troll lawsuits of the last 20 years.Opponents of API copyrights were hoping that the Supreme Court would declare that an API can't be protected by copyright at all, making such lawsuits impossible. Oracle, of course, was hoping the Supreme Court would reach the opposite conclusion. But as it often does, the Supreme Court chose to take the case in a different direction.The high court was actually considering two different questions in the case. Google not only argued that APIs can't be copyrighted, Google also argued that its use of Oracle's Java API was legal under copyright's fair use doctrine. The Supreme Court decided to skip over the first question and focus on the second one."Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his majority opinion. "We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copyrighted."In other words, the Supreme Court didn't provide any guidance on whether an API can be copyrighted—the main question everyone expected the court to answer. Instead, the court ruled that even if APIs can be copyrighted, Google's copying was protected by fair use.As regular readers know, fair use is one of the most important ideas in copyright law. It allows a news site like Ars to blockquote a paragraph from another publication for purposes of commentary and criticism. It allows consumers to record broadcast television shows for later viewing and to transfer legally purchased music between personal devices. A number of Google products rely on fair use, including &nbsp;and .Courts consider four major criteria when decided whether a use is fair. The party that wins on a majority of these factors usually wins the case. In Monday's ruling, Justice Breyer concluded that all four of these factors point in Google's direction.Google didn't need to win on all four of these factors in order to beat Oracle. But the fact that Google did win on all four will be important to future defendants, since it gives them a greater margin for error. Even if a defendant can't show that their API copying was exactly like Google's, they're still likely to prevail if they can convince a court that their use was similar to Google in at least three of these four areas.You must to comment.

Google and Oracle's last October left opponents of API copyrights extremely nervous. For the previous decade, Google had been arguing in lower courts that it didn't infringe copyright law when it re-implemented Java for use in Android. Google had lost—twice—at the appellate level.Last October, justices for the nation's highest court seemed skeptical as well. Not only were they asking Google's lawyer, Tom Goldstein, a lot of tough questions, a number of them didn't seem to even understand what an API was. That seemed like a bad sign for Google because the distinction between code that...

public

Timothy B. Lee began his journalism career writing for Ars in 2007. He then spent time at the Washington Post and Vox before returning home to Ars in 2017. Today he covers technology policy, artificial intelligence and the future of transportation. He holds a master's degree in computer science from Princeton. He lives with his family in Washington, DC.

Timothy B. Lee

Ars Technica is a website covering news and opinions in technology, science, politics, and society, created by Ken Fisher and Jon Stokes in 1998. It publishes news, reviews, and guides on issues such as computer hardware and software, science, technology policy, and video games. Many of the site's writers are postgraduates and some work for research institutions. Articles on the website are written in a less-formal tone than those in traditional journals. Ars Technica was privately owned until May 2008, when it was sold to Condé Nast Digital, the online division of Condé Nast Publications.

How the Supreme Court saved the software industry from API copyrights

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS