{"id":99668,"date":"2021-04-05T22:22:44","date_gmt":"2021-04-05T20:22:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/blog\/novosti-interneta\/google-oderzhal-pobedu-v-razbiratelstve-s-oracle-svyazannom-s-java-i-android"},"modified":"2021-04-05T22:22:44","modified_gmt":"2021-04-05T20:22:44","slug":"google-oderzhal-pobedu-v-razbiratelstve-s-oracle-svyazannom-s-java-i-android","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/news\/google-oderzhal-pobedu-v-razbiratelstve-s-oracle-svyazannom-s-java-i-android","title":{"rendered":"Google won the legal battle with Oracle regarding Java and Android","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling regarding the long-running legal battle between Oracle and Google, which has been ongoing since 2010, related to the use of Java API in the Android platform. The highest court sided with Google, acknowledging that the use of Java API constitutes fair use. <\/p>\n
The court agreed that Google's objective was to create a different system focused on solving problems for a new computing environment (smartphones), and that the development of the Android platform helped achieve and popularize this goal. History shows that there are various ways in which the reimplementation of an interface can contribute to the further development of software. Google's intentions were aimed at fostering such creative progress, which is a primary purpose of copyright. <\/p>\n
Google borrowed approximately 11,500 lines describing API structures, which constitutes only 0.4% of the entire API implementation totaling 2.86 million lines. Considering the volume and significance of the portion of code used, the 11,500 lines were regarded by the court as a small part of a significantly larger whole. Within the API, the copied lines are inextricably linked to other code (not owned by Oracle) that programmers utilize. Google copied the specific portion of code not for its excellence or functional advantages, but because it allowed programmers to leverage their existing skills in the new computing environment for smartphones. <\/p>\n
Recall that in 2012, a judge with programming experience agreed with Google's position and recognized that the API namespace tree is part of the command structure \u2014 a set of symbols associated with a specific function. Such a command set is interpreted by copyright law as being outside copyright protection, as duplicating the command structure is essential for ensuring compatibility and portability. Therefore, the identity of strings with declarations and header descriptions of methods is irrelevant \u2014 to implement similar functionality, the API function names must match, even if the functionality itself is realized 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. <\/p>\n
Oracle appealed and obtained a reversal of the decision in the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals \u2014 the appellate court recognized that the Java API is Oracle's intellectual property. Following this, Google changed its strategy and attempted to prove that the implementation of Java API in the Android platform is fair use, and this attempt was successful. Google argued that creating portable software does not require a license for the API, and reproducing the API to build compatible functional analogs falls under \"fair use.\" According to Google, classifying the API as intellectual property would negatively impact the industry, as it undermines the development of innovation, and creating compatible functional analogs of software platforms could become the subject of lawsuits. <\/p>\n
Oracle has filed an appeal for the second time, and once again, the case was reviewed in its favor. The court ruled that the principle of 'fair use' does not apply to Android, as this platform is developed by Google with ulterior motives, realized not through direct sales of the software product but through control over related services and advertising. Google retains control over users through a proprietary API for interaction with its services, which is forbidden to use for creating functional analogs; thus, the use of Java API is not limited to non-commercial applications. In response, Google filed a petition with the higher court, and the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue of whether application programming interfaces (APIs) qualify as intellectual property and issued a final ruling in favor of Google. \n Source: opennet.ru<\/a> <\/p>","protected":false,"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"html"}]},"excerpt":{"rendered":"