,A file photo of people viewing the US Supreme Court building from behind security fencing on Capitol Hill in Washington. As the Supreme Court’s majority noted, much of the value of those APIs isn’t held by Oracle – it’s held by the developers who know how to use them. Allowing Google to copy the APIs enabled those developers to apply that knowledge to a new product, which is a win for innovation and productivity. — AP
sàn casino đổi thưởng tiền mặt uy tín SỐ 1 ，Bạn có thể nạp và rút tiền với； Ví điện tử ; đồng tiền ảo; usdt; an toàn tiện lợi và có độ bảo mật cao. Mọi thông tin chi tiết xin liên hệ URL:www.vng.app。
It seems fitting that the Supreme Court would issue its decision in Google v. Oracle, a clash of Silicon Valley software titans, at roughly the same time Warner Media released Godzilla vs. Kong, a clash of CGI titans. I mean, whom do you root for?
In the court case, at least, the winner was more aligned with the public’s interest than the loser. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Stephen Breyer found that Google had made legal use – technically, “fair use” – of some 11,500 lines of code written by Sun Microsystems (which Oracle bought in 2009) in its Android software for phones and tablets. The copied lines of code came from Java APIs, or application programming interfaces, that enable apps, websites and services using the Java software platform to interoperate.
And with that, I’ve lost half my readership. Unless you write software for a living, you probably don’t feel like you have a stake in copyright protection for APIs (or computer programs in general).
But you do, and it boils down to this: If the companies that own popular programming languages and platforms can stop people from freely copying and using their APIs, we’ll end up with fewer great services and apps online and fewer ways to use them.
Granted, the Los Angeles metropolitan area is filled with people who shudder at the thought of any ruling that seems to weaken copyright protection. They make their living in the entertainment industry, where each free copy translates in some folks’ minds to a lost sale. That’s why the Hollywood studios and the major record labels, along with the major book publishers, news organisations and other copyright-dependent industries, sided with Oracle and urged the justices not to take a broad view of fair use in this case.
And predictably, the Copyright Alliance, a group that represents a broad swath of copyright holders, denounced the ruling Tuesday, saying it “has the potential to unduly broaden the fair use doctrine, as applied to creators of computer programs as well as individual creators and *** all businesses that do not have the means to compete with Internet behemoths like Google”.
As the justices emphasised, however, Monday’s ruling is confined to this one case and this one type of software. Yet it does add to the body of rulings that help draw the line between the sort of creativity that merits the expansive protections of copyright law and the more functional work that does not. This is especially important in the realm of software, where that line is particularly blurry.