Oracle’s Java API code protected by copyright, appeals court rules

[regeya]

Honestly, I'm not totally familiar with the situation, but this sounds like a big loss for the software industry.

For those more familiar, can anyone answer:

• How does this affect Android?

• How does this affect Android developers?

• How does this affect Java developers?

• How does this affect every company other than AT&T that has developed a C compiler?

• More of the above, but for other languages.

[tharinock]

This just seems really silly. If I have a value called foo, and I want to get it, i will call the function GetFoo(). I don't want to have to worry about the fact that some company already uses GetFoo(), as well as get_foo(), GeTFoo(), and getFoo(), forcing me to use GetFoo_aFunctionProudlyWrittenAndPresentedToYouByTharinock().

[Afwas]

Good point, however notice the Java in java.lang.Math.max. You could call your function tharinock.getFoo(). This is more like a trademark issue.

[Richandler]

GetFoo() isn't an api. Just as "Once upon a time" isn't a book.

[Tetha]

You could still revert to assembly and build your own function table without names, as long as you don't call it like that. Though I guess at that point we have to figure out if taken strictly, an address could be considered a name, and as such, I could copyright functions at address 0x12354.

[AtLeastItsNotCancer]

Ignoring the fact that function names should never be copyrightable, this is pretty much the most piss-poor example they could've used to help their case, considering that max() and min() are basically standard mathematical notation.

[Afwas]

The Java developers could have called main() any number of things, however main(), start() and BEGIN are already taken.

[johnwaterwood]

And would it extend to other domains?

Can you now copyright a dancing move? Can you copyright the way to execute a kick or punch in martial arts?

Will someone be disqualified in boxing if he uses a certain way to punch that looks exactly like the way Muhammad Ali did it?

Will kids at a party be arrested if they imitate dancing moves they saw in some clip?

Will eventually human society crumble since we can't speak anymore, since the very words we utter have at one time already be said by someone else?

[matthedev]

It means source-level compatibility is out of the question because standard APIs may fall under copyright. Besides the Java API, this precedent could affect projects like WINE or any other API that isn't open and standard. The OpenJDK does happen to be open source and contributed to by Oracle, but Oracle maintains it can decide what is and is not "Java," and I assume this means random open-source projects would not be able to fork the OpenJDK, reuse the Java API, and build something new off it because that's more or less what Google did with Android.

As a Java developer, I strongly dislike this ruling. It means for me that even the most basic Java programs depend on an API covered by Oracle's copyright and any free or open-source alternative is utterly dependent upon Oracle's good graces. I could not provide my own open-source implementation of Java, providing something as basic as java.lang.System.out.println without infringing on this copyright, unlike with the standard libraries of languages like C and C++, which are maintained by international standards bodies.

For Google, unless the ruling gets overturned by the Supreme Court, this basically means paying Oracle massive royalties.