The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling regarding the ongoing 2010 lawsuit "Oracle v. Google" over the use of Java APIs in the platform. AndroidThe highest court sided with Google and found that the use of the Java API constituted fair use.
The court agreed that Google's goal was to create a different system aimed at solving problems for a different computing environment (smartphones), and that the development of the platform Android helped realize and popularize this goal. History shows that there are various ways in which interface reimplementation can contribute to the further development of computer programs. Google's intentions were aimed at achieving this kind of creative progress, which is the primary purpose of copyright law.
Google borrowed approximately 11500 lines of API structures, which is only 0.4% of the entire API implementation of 2.86 million lines. Given the size and significance of the code used, the 11500 lines were considered by the court to be one small part of a much larger whole. As part of the programming interface, the copied strings are inextricably linked by other (non-Oracle) code that programmers use. Google copied the piece of code in question not because of its perfection or functional advantages, but because it enabled programmers to use existing skills in the new computing environment for smartphones.
Let's remember that in 2012, a judge with programming experience agreed with Google's position and recognized that the name tree that forms the API is part of the command structure - a set of characters associated with a specific function. Such a set of commands is interpreted by copyright law as not subject to copyright, since duplication of command structure is a prerequisite for ensuring compatibility and portability. Therefore, the identity of the lines with declarations and header descriptions of methods does not matter - to implement similar functionality, the function names forming the API must match, even if the functionality itself is implemented differently. Since there is only one way to express an idea or function, everyone is free to use identical declarations, and no one can monopolize such expressions.
Oracle appealed and successfully overturned the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that the Java API was Oracle's intellectual property. Google then changed its tactics and attempted to prove that the platform's implementation of the Java API was Android is considered fair use, and this attempt was successful. Google's position was that creating portable software does not require an API license, and that duplicating an API to create compatible functional alternatives is considered "fair use." Google argued that classifying APIs as intellectual property would negatively impact the industry, as it would stifle innovation, and the creation of compatible functional alternatives to software platforms could become the subject of lawsuits.
Oracle appealed a second time, and again the case was overturned in its favor. The court ruled that the "fair use" principle did not apply. Android, as this platform is being developed by Google for selfish purposes, realized not through direct sales of the software, but through control over related services and advertising. Google maintains control over users through a proprietary API for interacting with its services, which is prohibited from being used to create functional alternatives; i.e., the use of the Java API is not limited to non-commercial use. In response, Google filed a petition in a higher court, and the US Supreme Court returned to the issue of whether APIs are intellectual property and ruled in favor of Google.
Source: opennet.ru
