the opinion is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Regarding the fact that the question of copyrightability of APIs was not addressed, Thomas makes, in his dissent (joined by Alito), the following statement "The Court inexplicably declines to address copyrightabil- ity. Its sole stated reason is that “technological, economic, and business-related circumstances” are “rapidly chang- ing.” Ante, at 15. That, of course, has been a constant where computers are concerned. Rather than address this principal question, the Court simply assumes that declaring code is protected and then concludes that every fair-use factor favors Google." and "The majority purports to save for another day the ques- tion whether declaring code is copyrightable." 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 > -- --dmg --- D M German http://turingmachine.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
