SCOTUS likely to rule that APIs are copyrightable

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name	18#CLQe<D-Xp=f4HgE o]cx?VmlS6⚄⚧075KT bry'jhi♔qwI.!9W)&R{NZ⚹Y@_M:^~a2⛕sB%z>J`⚸O+\|AP♭nF;dU⛮3k
Email
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Captcha Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:57 No.4673

File: 1608526257084.png ( 91.48 KB , 740x724 , negasoy.png )

>was a disaster for Google
Yes, YES.

>Supreme Court justices seem poised to allow copyrights on APIs.
NONONONO

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:57 No.4677

API's? Why should I care about this?

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:57 No.4678

>>4677
Slippery slope of monopolization of libraries and interfaces. Instead of you choosing between competing libraries, you are forced to choose one. Also forces library writers to alter their library to be substantially different to competing products, which might lead to subpar APIs. So, another big win for proprietary software.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:57 No.4679

File: 1608526257646.jpg ( 21.44 KB , 490x326 , rmss.jpg )

>everyone copies non-free shit like Java for years
>"Oh nooo how could we see this coming!?"

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:57 No.4681

>>4677
>why should I care about copyright law gaining even more power?
Really nigga?

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:58 No.4684

Does that mean I can GPL an API and force every implementation to be GPL?

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:58 No.4686

>>4677
Would put WINE, DXVK, video game emulators, NTFS implementations on Linux, ReactOS, and many other "reverse engineered" projects in a legal grey area, making it easier companies to sue and then force web hosts and domain registrants to shut down distribution of this software if a judge rules in their favor.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:58 No.4688

I really, really hate Americans, especially their government and Silicon Valley.

Thanks for nothing.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:58 No.4689

>>4677
GNU/Linux and *BSD would become illegal.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:58 No.4690

>>4684
yeah, probably

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:58 No.4691

>>4689
Unlikely unless Micro Focus gets acquired by a company like Oracle.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:58 No.4692

Does the G lawyer's performance in the OP link indicate that this is also the outcome G is looking for?

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:50:59 No.4700

>>4672
Well fuck, is there any way to make this ruling not applicable or to challenge it? I really hope that crap like this will be fought against by the states.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:51:00 No.4705

>>4689
Rust OS here we come

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:51:00 No.4706

>>4705
How's HRT going?

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 04:51:00 No.4707

>>4706
well then whats your fucking solution?

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-05 (Mon) 23:56:43 No.7662

US Supreme Court rules in favor of Google in largest-ever programming copyright case

https://www.rt.com/usa/520167-google-vanquishes-oracle-scotus-copyright/

SCOTUS has ruled that tech giant Google did not violate copyright law by reusing some 11,330 lines of code and other elements of fellow Big Tech player Oracle’s Java platform to build its wildly popular Android OS.

The $8 billion copyright case against Google landed heavily in the tech giant’s favor on Monday, with six judges finding in favor of the company and just two dissenting in support of Oracle.

Google had argued its reuse of the code in question was in line with “long-settled, common practice[s] in the industry,” insisting there is no copyright protection governing “purely functional, noncreative computer code” of the sort it lifted from Oracle to build Android in 2007.

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-06 (Tue) 04:50:23 No.7666

>>7662
so are APIs copyrightable now or not?

Sounds like google won?

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-06 (Tue) 12:20:05 No.7673

>>4673
>>Supreme Court justices seem poised to allow copyrights on APIs.
afaik its just how they operate, as their judgements are the highest authority, they try to narrow it down as much as possible. But that means any use/duplication of API will be recognized as "fair use", even if it did end up being copyrighted (which they didnt take a stance on)

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-06 (Tue) 14:54:43 No.7675

>>7666
Seems like we're safe for now, Lucifer.

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-07 (Wed) 19:45:31 No.7686

>>7666
>so are APIs copyrightable now or not?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/5/22367851/google-oracle-supreme-court-ruling-java-android-api
>In 2014, a federal appeals court ruled that the APIs could be subject to copyright in a controversial decision overturning a ruling by Judge William Alsup. (The Supreme Court declined to hear Google’s appeal the following year, letting the appellate ruling stand.) But that decision left open the question of whether Google’s implementation had violated the Java copyright, and Google launched a second phase of the case arguing that the Android APIs constituted fair use. In 2018, the same appellate court ruled that Google’s implementation was not fair use, putting the company at risk of up to $8.8 billion in damages. Today’s decision overturns that ruling, allowing Google to continue its use of the Android code without threat of a copyright claim.

>Notably, then-President Trump’s solicitor general had formally petitioned the Supreme Court to leave the appellate ruling in place, effectively siding with Oracle in the fight.