Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 21:41 UTC
Legal And thus, it ends. Despite a never-ending stream of doom and gloom from Oracle/Microsoft-funded 'pundits' regarding Google and Android (six hundred billion trillion gazillion eurodollars in damages!!1!), judge Alsup has just squashed all of Oracle's chances with a ruling that is good news for those of us who truly care about this wonderful industry: APIs are not copyrightable. Alsup: "To accept Oracle's claim would be to allow anyone to copyright one version of code to carry out a system of commands and thereby bar all others from writing their own different versions to carry out all or part of the same commands. No holding has ever endorsed such a sweeping proposition." Supreme Court, Ellison?
Thread beginning with comment 520405
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:


"As such such applications are 100% Android and 0% Oracle Java."

"The language is irrelevant. It could have been C++, Javascript or C#. It's irrelevant cause both languages are *NOT* compatible cause of the different API's and packages."

The thing is, android does use the Java language plus it's APIs, even though they reimplemented everything in the back end. Oracle's case was about how android derives from Java's APIs, which is true, but the court ruled that it doesn't matter.

Edit: You raised the issue that google's Java implementation bytecode isn't compatible with Java's official bytecode. That may be true (although the existence of a bytecode translator makes it somewhat less true), but I don't think it's relevant. Consider a C++ program that uses the STL APIs, this program can be compiled for Linux (PPC/ARM/x86/x86-64), windows, SunOS, etc. Now would you admit that these all share the same API even though they're not binary compatible?

This was the right ruling, in my opinion. If we're not permitted to re-implement APIs, then 3rd party software implementations could be prohibited from being compatible with defacto proprietary standards (Mono, Wine, ReactOS, Samba, etc). The ruling in this case was very narrow, but it did set the right precedent.

Edited 2012-06-02 01:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2