API's can't be copyrighted

[Cédric Beust ♔]

Looks like Judge Alsup decided to rule, after all, and his decision will most likely please everyone in the industry.

API's are not copyrightable in the US.

-- 

Cédric

[Joe Attardi]

Judge Alsup is awesome.

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:06:55 +0200, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>
wrote:

> Looks like Judge Alsup decided to

> rule<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275>,

> after all, and his decision will most likely please everyone in the
> industry.
>
> API's are not copyrightable in the US.
>

Now that the trial, if I understand, is over (with the exception of some
minor stuff), can we try to draw some conclusions? For instance:

1. The licensing model of Java doesn't have any "trap" and people are
really free to use it
2. At this point, the argument of Java not having an "open spec" (see
discussions about JDK 7 vs Java 7 vs C#) loses value.

I wonder whether at this point Google could drop the ambiguity and
officially say that Android is based on a "Java runtime".


--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it

[Jan Goyvaerts I❤©]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:06:55 +0200, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com> wrote:

Looks like Judge Alsup decided to

rule<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275>,

after all, and his decision will most likely please everyone in the
industry.

API's are not copyrightable in the US.

Now that the trial, if I understand, is over (with the exception of some minor stuff), can we try to draw some conclusions? For instance:

1. The licensing model of Java doesn't have any "trap" and people are really free to use it
2. At this point, the argument of Java not having an "open spec" (see discussions about JDK 7 vs Java 7 vs C#) loses value.

I wonder whether at this point Google could drop the ambiguity and officially say that Android is based on a "Java runtime".

I think this over if Oracle says it doesn't appeal... :-(

 

--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

[Ricky Clarkson]

No, Oracle still owns the Java trademark and can deny Google the use of it.  No amount of court cases will let PepsiCo start distributing under the name Coca Cola.

That is actually reasonable now as Android cannot run arbitrary Java programs.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.

[morten hattesen]

One remaining issue on Java "openness" still exists, though. Oracle's
licensing policies of the TCK (ref Apache Harmony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to_obtain_a_TCK_license_from_Sun
)

So, it is effectively impossible for anyone to make an alternate Java
implementation, as there is no way of measuring its compatibility,
which is what the TCK does.


On Jun 1, 10:15 am, "Fabrizio Giudici" <Fabrizio.Giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:

>
> Now that the trial, if I understand, is over (with the exception of some
> minor stuff), can we try to draw some conclusions? For instance:
>
> 1. The licensing model of Java doesn't have any "trap" and people are
> really free to use it
> 2. At this point, the argument of Java not having an "open spec" (see
> discussions about JDK 7 vs Java 7 vs C#) loses value.
>
> I wonder whether at this point Google could drop the ambiguity and
> officially say that Android is based on a "Java runtime".
>
> --
> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."

> fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.ithttp://tidalwave.it-http://fabriziogiudici.it

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:15:01 +0200, Ricky Clarkson
<ricky.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, Oracle still owns the Java trademark and can deny Google the use of
> it.

Correct. The other two questions of mine still stand, though.

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:51:17 +0200, morten hattesen
<morten....@gmail.com> wrote:

> One remaining issue on Java "openness" still exists, though. Oracle's
> licensing policies of the TCK (ref Apache Harmony
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to_obtain_a_TCK_license_from_Sun
> )
>
> So, it is effectively impossible for anyone to make an alternate Java
> implementation, as there is no way of measuring its compatibility,
> which is what the TCK does.

Correct. Putting it together with the previous exchange, the TCK is needed
if you want to put the Java(TM) trademark on your product. Question: is
this really important, today? Android demonstrates that beef matters more
than trademarks. Also, the demise of Harmony because IBM was persuaded on
moving to the mainstream JDK way demonstrates that to have a Java(TM)
trademarkable product you need a big company. This actually restricts the
game to a small number of potential players and thus makes the TCK point
mostly a theoretical one (big players in the end have no problems in
making a deal with Oracle).

Summing up, and in a prudential wait for more information, including the
eventuality that Oracle appeals, this story teaches me that the Java
ecosystem is really open for what matters. I think once we have got the
point, we should tell it out loud.

--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."

[Ralph Goers]

Anyone can make an alternate implementation so long as they do not call it Java and do not claim compatibility.

Ralph.

[Casper Bang]

I'm with you on that first one, but I fail to see how you can not claim compatibility. For instance, Apache Harmony is not Java(TM) and while it can not prove Java compatibility (obtain the TCK), it *can* claim it. Apache Harmony died not because it could not claim compatibility, but because it could not demonstrate it, thus nullifying its ability to be marketed as a drop-in replacement for the defined standard JSE. However, the claimed compatibility was fine enough for Google, who planned their own subset for Android relying only on a de-facto standard anyway (claimed but not proven).

[mP]

Im just wondering if an API is not copyrightable and lets say "free" what does that say of the accompanying documentation ? Is the documentation for some method or class part of the API, can that info be used to implement a compatible "copy" ?

[Cédric Beust ♔]

Speaking of which, Oracle just agreed to zero damages against Google.

-- 

Cédric

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM, mP <miroslav...@gmail.com> wrote:

Im just wondering if an API is not copyrightable and lets say "free" what does that say of the accompanying documentation ? Is the documentation for some method or class part of the API, can that info be used to implement a compatible "copy" ?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/zwazjbyLBHIJ.

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:02:03 +0200, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>
wrote:

> Speaking of which, Oracle just agreed to zero damages against

> Google<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/258024/oracle_agrees_to_zero_damages_in_google_lawsuit_eyes_appeal.html>
> .
>

A side question: in the USA, in such cases, do the attorney of the
plaintiff get paid? And who pays the attorney of the defendant? I think
this is relevant in the "small corporate" argument against patents that
was also referred to in the other thread.

--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."

[Russel Winder]

The ruling has yet to be confirmed by challenge, but the interpretation
(at least this side of the pond) is that the document presenting the API
remains a copyrightable thing (just as with any document) but the API
itself is not. Thus

double sqrt ( double ) ;

is not copyrightable in itself, but a document with it in is. Seems
like quite a sensible situation really.

--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder

[Phil Haigh]

According to Tech News Today (well, yesterday, episode 526) this is just a mechanism to speed up the current process which in turn allows them to file for appeal more quickly.