Metti che qualcuno possieda Java, le cui chiamate a funzioni sono state codificate da tempo.
Metti che Google utilizzi quelle funzioni per emularle, non solo ai fini dell'interoperabilita'.
Questo è il pomo della discordia, che tutti stanno chiamando come battaglia per liberare le api dal copyright.
Non è questo il punto. Aspettiamo di leggere la decisione alla luce di questa considerazione.
E ricordiamo che, ai fini dell'interoperabilita', la direttiva europea sul software permette espressamente questo e altro.
Ma pare che io sia rimasto tra i pochi vecchi a ricordarla.
Diffidate da commenti unilaterali. Verifichiamo bene invece quello che facevo Google, poi riparliamone.
Link utili da EFF.org:
- Dangerous Decision in Oracle v. Google: Federal Circuit Reverses Sensible Lower Court Ruling on APIs
- lengthy decision in the Oracle v. Google appeal
b. Short Phrases
The district court also found that Oracle’s declaring code consists of ^ uncopyrightable short phrases. Specifical- ly, the court concluded that, “while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.” Copyrightability Deci- sion, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 976.
The district court is correct that “[w]ords and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans” are not sub- ject to copyright protection. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a). The court failed to recognize, however, that the relevant question for copyrightability purposes is not whether the work at issue contains short phrases—as literary works often do—but,^ rather, whether those phrases are creative.
As previously discussed, a court must examine the software program to determine whether it contains creative expression that can be separated from the underlying function.
On balance, we find that due respect for the limit of our appellate function requires that we ^ remand the fair use question for a new trial.
First, although it is undisputed that Google’s use of the API packages is commer- cial, the parties disagree on whether its use is “^ transformative.” Google argues that it is, because it wrote its own implementing code, created its own virtual machine, and incorporated the packages into a smartphone platform.
For its part, Oracle maintains that Google’s use is not ^ transformative because:
(1) “[t]he same code in Android . . . enables programmers to invoke the same pre-programmed functions in exactly the same way;” and
(2) Google’s use of the declaring code and packages does not serve a different function from Java. Appellant Reply Br. 47.
While Google overstates what activities can be deemed ^ transformative under a correct application of the law, we cannot say that there are no material facts in dispute on the question of whether Google’s use is “^ transformative,” even under a correct reading of the law.
As such, we are unable to resolve this issue on appeal.