Protocol | Enterprise

The software industry dodges an API tax in Oracle decision

The Supreme Court's fair-use decision upholds decades of software development practices. It's a win for interoperability and developers worried about the implications of a new axis of tech power.

Oracle sued Google over its use of Java in the Android operating system.

Oracle sued Google over its use of Java in the Android operating system.

Photo: Daniel Romero/Unsplash

A generation of software developers sighed in relief Monday morning after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that APIs can be considered a fair use of copyrighted material, preserving decades of common practice in software development.

The 6-2 ruling was a sweeping victory for Google, which was sued by Oracle nearly 11 years ago over its use of portions of the Java application programming interface in Android. "We reach the conclusion that in this case, where Google reimplemented a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, Google's copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use of that material as a matter of law," wrote Justice Stephen Breyer, author of the majority opinion.

APIs are important components of modern tech that define the function of a given piece of software. Oracle attempted to argue that APIs were novel expressions of creativity, drawing objections from a huge swath of computer scientists and everyday developers who consider APIs structural components that merely provide directions on how to use a piece of software.

The court overruled a lower-court decision in Oracle's favor, siding with Google after reviewing the four factors — "the purpose and character of the use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" — used to decide questions of fair use.

"Today's Supreme Court decision in Google v. Oracle is a big win for innovation, interoperability & computing. Thanks to the country's leading innovators, software engineers & copyright scholars for their support," said Google's Kent Walker, senior vice president for global affairs, in a tweeted statement.

A 'broader analysis'

The majority opinion does not rule specifically on whether APIs are subject to copyright protection, assuming that to be the case for the sake of argument. But "unlike many other computer programs, the value of the copied lines is in significant part derived from the investment of users (here computer programmers) who have learned the API's system. Given these differences, application of fair use here is unlikely to undermine the general copyright protection that Congress provided for computer programs," the court wrote.

"This case is a big win for API reimplementation," said Charles Duan, a senior fellow at R Street, in a Twitter thread. "Fair use cases now often hinge on the user's perceived good or bad faith; this case largely rejects that view in favor of a broader analysis of progress and competition."

A large part of the decision centered on the fact that reproducing APIs is good for both software developers and consumers. It would be very difficult — and likely very expensive — to create interoperable software if developers had to come up with a unique way of specifying how their software can be used with each and every new program they created.

"Given the costs and difficulties of producing alternative APIs with similar appeal to programmers, allowing enforcement here would make of the Sun Java API's declaring code a lock limiting the future creativity of new programs. Oracle alone would hold the key," Justice Breyer wrote.

A decision in Oracle's favor would have had enormous ramifications for modern software development and especially for cloud computing, which is largely implemented through APIs. Even Oracle itself copied AWS's S3 API when setting up its own cloud storage service, which would have been either illegal or very costly to do in the future had it prevailed in this case.

Java has been used extensively in software development for a very long time, including well before Oracle acquired the creator of Java, Sun Microsystems, in 2009. If Google's use of the Java API in Android was considered an infringement, Oracle would have won legal support to seek compensation from a huge number of other software developers who had written programs that interacted with Java in similar ways.

"The fact that you're doing something more broad with it, that you're reimplementing this API [and] providing this sort of broader public benefit is really important," said Kendra Albert, clinical instructor at Harvard Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic. "Many courts have been sort of reluctant to consider a public benefit as part of the use of [the works] on the market, they consider quite limitedly like, 'How does this harm the copyright holder's financial interests in the works?'"

In a statement, Oracle barely acknowledged the actual decision, choosing to focus directly on Google rather than the API issues at hand.

"The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater. The barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower. They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can. This behavior is exactly why regulatory authorities around the world and in the United States are examining Google's business practices," said Deborah Hellinger, an Oracle spokesperson.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority ruling.

"By skipping copyrightability, the majority gets the methodology backward, causing the Court to sidestep a key conclusion that ineluctably affects the fair-use analysis: Congress rejected categorical distinctions between declaring and implementing code," Thomas wrote in the dissent.

Monday's decision could lead to future legislative action on the subject of copyrights and software, but it upholds the status quo when it comes to modern software development. And it could have much broader implications for other fair use cases in the future.

"It's a big deal because we haven't had a fair-use opinion from the court in a while," Albert said. "The way in which the analysis was done and the types of things [Breyer] considers provide a lot of legal room for folks to actually think more broadly about fair uses."

Power

How the creators of Spligate built gaming’s newest unicorn

1047 Games is now valued at $1.5 billion after three rounds of funding since May.

1047 Games' Splitgate amassed 13 million downloads when its beta launched in July.

Image: 1047 Games

The creators of Splitgate had a problem. Their new free-to-play video game, a take on the legendary arena shooter Halo with a teleportation twist borrowed from Valve's Portal, was gaining steam during its open beta period in July. But it was happening too quickly.

Splitgate was growing so fast and unexpectedly that the entire game was starting to break, as the servers supporting the game began to, figuratively speaking, melt down. The game went from fewer than 1,000 people playing it at any given moment in time to suddenly having tens of thousands of concurrent players. Then it grew to hundreds of thousands of players, all trying to log in and play at once across PlayStation, Xbox and PC.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Latest Stories