Unfortunately the argument that APIs are fair use is, "a mixed question of fact and law." But did point to principles that will make it easier for some future APIs to pass that bar. But only some. As the decision says, "The fourth statutory factor focuses upon the 'effect' of the copying in the 'market for or value of the copyrighted work.'" They found as a question of fact that Google's reimplementation increases the value of Java. But if you're reimplementing an API to create a directly competing product, that statutory factor will work against you.
The Supreme Court did not rule on whether APIs are copyrightable. So the unfortunate previous ruling on that from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on that still stands as precedent. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf for the full decision. On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 10:29 AM Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > > Google just won against Oracle in the dispute over Java code. The main > argument was that APIs are “fair use.” /Larry > > > > Lawrence Rosen > > _______________________________________________ > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not > necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
