Oracle v Google API Case

Oracle vs Google over Android having the same interfaces comes to mind. [0][0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180327/10431439512/insan...

That's not what Google v Oracle was about. That case was about whether the API of a piece of code (in this case, the API of most of the Java standard library) is copyrightable as a whole, without the implementation; and subsequently, even if they are copyrightable, whether a new implementation of that API would be fair use.In the end the conclusion from the SC was that Google's use was fair use regardless of the question of copyrightability, which they didn't decide on (the pre

Google REIMPLEMENTED base classes to match what a normal Java app would expect. They complied with the public API as you'd find in javadocs. Oracle claims that is infringement because to make that work, their method signatures look identical to oracle's (and thus Oracle claims they were copied, in violation of copyright law). Google claims that API cannot be copyrightable by definition (an argument that most programmers agree with I feel)There was also a bit of similar code for obvi

Isn't this the same question as Google copying the API of Oracle's Java libraries?

Oracle made many arguments -- patent and copyright infringement. The patent claims were rejected, but after an appeal, the appeals court ruled that language-level APIs (i.e, not REST APIs or other protocols) are copyrightable, at which point (another) court debated the question of fair use by Google, and ruled in Google's favor (i.e, that their use of Java's API does not constitute an infringement of the API's copyright). Oracle have announced their decision to appeal the ruling.<

Well, Google (or rather, the original Android) did that to Oracle with the Java API, and Oracle, being Oracle, sued.

Google did a clean-room implementation of copied APIs. Those APIs are licensed under two licenses, and Google chose neither. All you need to do is choose one and comply with it.All the ruling means is that if you copy an API you should either comply with the license (Google didn't comply with either possible licenses) or don't, but have a good fair-use defense, such as non-profit use and/or interoperability (neither applies to Android, but that hasn't been ru

Pretty sure that this is simply copying an API, and Google specifically fought a court case against Oracle, against the notion that they couldn't copy Oracle's Java API. As such, I doubt they'd have a leg to stand on without giving Oracle another shot at them.

I don't remember the specific case at the moment, but a few years back I think Oracle was suing Google (or some mix of big companies) about Google replicating the Java api but with a complete from-scratch backend reimplementation. Google wasn't using private Oracle source code, just building a replacement that used the publicly published api. Google won the case, and it I remember right that established public api's as non copyright or something. Again, not a lawyer and someone el

Google-Oracle side stepped the issue of API copyrightability by saying Google's particular implementation would fall under fair use. Whether APIs are copyrightable remains an open question.