Power

Google and Oracle are headed to the Supreme Court. The future of software hangs in the balance.

A generation of software built around shared assumptions for interoperability faces an uncertain future depending on the outcome of a yearslong legal fight between Google and Oracle.

The U.S. Supreme Court

A ruling in its favor of Oracle in a case against Google could embolden older tech companies looking for growth to assert copyright over a wide swath of modern software.

Photo: Angel Xavier Viera-Vargas

Software fed upon itself in order to eat the world, digesting the earlier groundbreaking works of the development community in order to evolve into an economic force far more sophisticated than early programmers could have ever dreamed. The Supreme Court is about to decide whether to break that chain.

On Oct. 7, the nation's highest court will hear arguments in the long-running dispute between Oracle and Google over whether or not an important tool in modern software development can be subject to copyright protection, and the verdict could overturn long-standing practices behind modern software development. After Google prevailed in the initial trial related to its use of Java in the Android mobile operating system, two subsequent appeals courts rulings have upheld Oracle's argument that application programming interfaces (APIs) can be considered protected works of expression.

Generations of software has been built upon the premise that it makes little sense to duplicate some of the most basic parts of an application, especially the parts that make it easier for software to interact with other software. But now that it's almost impossible to imagine the modern commercial world without the rich network of software that has reached into every corner of our lives, most often through APIs, those who control those interactions control a large chunk of the world economy.

If Oracle's argument is upheld, software developers fear chilling effects will descend upon their industry. A ruling in its favor could embolden older tech companies looking for growth to assert copyright over a wide swath of modern software, arguing that many of today's applications would not exist without their work.

Leaving the appeals court rulings in place would definitely rattle the open-source software community, which built the blueprint for a generation of collaborative enterprise software development. It could make it that much harder to launch some new startups; it could also provide a legal defensive moat for other startup ideas. And it could further consolidate the power of the modern platform companies that control an increasing portion of this world.

"We're going to see a lot of software we would have seen written, not be written as a result of this," said Nell Shamrell-Harrington, a former senior staff research engineer at Mozilla who is active in open-source software communities. "[APIs] are the building blocks of the web."

Here comes the Sun

This dispute kicked off 10 years ago, following Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems in 2009. Sun created Java, an extremely important programming language and software development platform that was the foundation for an enormous number of internet-connected applications in the late 1990s and early 2000s. More than 25 years later, Java remains the fifth most widely used programming language among professional software developers, according to this year's Stack Overflow survey.

When Google began development of Android, it wanted to use some key parts of Java's APIs as part of the core of Android, but it was unable to work out a licensing deal with Sun. So Google essentially duplicated those parts of Java in Android to implement similar ideas, while also using some code related to Java APIs taken from an open-source version of Java. It believed this action was protected by fair use principles, and a jury later agreed.

APIs are the connective tissue of modern software. If you use software that works in concert with another piece of software — which describes pretty much everything you now use — that interaction is often governed by an API, which sets ground rules for how software programs talk to each other and exchange information.

A brief filed in support of Google's argument signed by 83 prominent computer scientists explained it this way:

"Software interfaces, including those embodied in the Java application programming interface (API) at issue here, are purely functional systems or methods of operating a computer program or platform. They are not computer programs themselves. Interfaces merely describe what functional tasks a computer program will perform without specifying how it does so."

There aren't a lot of novel ways for software programs to exchange this information, so a great number of APIs are functionally alike; they might not use the exact same code, but for all intents and purposes, they accomplish pretty much the same thing.

"There's no reason to reimplement the structure of how software is implemented," Shamrell-Harrington said.

Red alert

Oracle argued, however, that Google's implementation of the Java APIs in Android was too similar to the way Sun engineers had implemented those APIs, and it sued Google in 2010 for copyright and patent infringement. The patent suit was tossed out at the initial trial, but the copyright claims have endured thanks to appeals court rulings that favored Oracle.

Five professors advising the Supreme Court on Oracle's point of view argued that APIs actually can be expressions of creative energy. "As our research demonstrates, even the simplest computer program is capable of being expressed in many ways," they wrote in a report. "As programs become more complex, the number of unique solutions also increases."

This is the aspect of this case that has both enraged and terrified people in the software community, especially those working for small- and medium-size companies, where APIs have rarely been considered more interesting than plumbing. Because so many APIs in use are functionally similar, whoever can claim to have originally developed those API methods would be able to assert copyright protection over those methods across a wide range of software, even software completely unrelated to the original interface.

"I think in a lot of those cases, it would be very easy to trip yourself into a place where you are unintentionally infringing," said Adam Jacob, co-founder and former chief technology officer at Chef and current CEO of stealthy startup The System Initiative.

Kyle Mitchell, an attorney who advises companies on software licensing issues, compared methods for building APIs to the tips and tricks that craftspeople acquire as they gain experience in a certain trade, like carpentry. Those so-called "secrets" are open knowledge among veterans of that trade, but they require some skill or a patient mentor to acquire; yet, no one "owns" the knowledge required to frame a wall, for example.

An Oracle victory would open up the floodgates to a new era of software litigation, said Van Lindberg, an intellectual property attorney with law firm Taylor English and a member of the board of directors for the Python Software Foundation.

"In the short term, it will be a huge windfall to a small number of companies that have interfaces that a lot of people use," he said. "These interfaces will suddenly be new control points that people will be able to use to extract revenue from other companies for the right to use what was previously understood to be free."

The delay to the hearing, which was originally scheduled for March but got pushed back due to the pandemic, has created a bigger challenge for Google. Because of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there are now just eight justices on the Supreme Court, which means Google must secure a 5-3 verdict in its favor to overturn the appeals courts rulings. In the case of a 4-4 tie, the company could seek to have the case reheard before nine judges at some point in the future.

Silver lining?

Over the long run, a world where APIs are subject to copyright protection could actually be a boon to some startups that develop interesting and useful APIs for their software, Jacob argued.

A decade ago, enterprise software startups found traction by developing and commercializing interesting open-source software projects, which Jacob did successfully with Chef. The cloud era has started to expose the limits of that model, but APIs are even more important in the cloud era.

"In a world where the API is copyrightable, as an entrepreneur that's a brand-new vector of control," Jacob said. All things considered, he would prefer that the Supreme Court rule in favor of the status quo for APIs, but the software business has always forced its participants to adapt quickly to changes in the wind.

A large part of the problem is that two decades of software has been constructed without clear legal direction on how (or whether) APIs should be subject to copyright protection, Mitchell said. A victory for Oracle wouldn't bring immediate clarity to the issue, but it would serve as the beginning of a new round of legal wrangling that will define the parameters of how APIs can be protected.

"Is that bad overall? If you measure good and bad by the involvement of lawyers and paperwork, then yeah, it probably is," Mitchell said. "But were you living in denial?"

The Oracles and Googles of the software industry will be fine, regardless of which way the justices decide to vote. After all, they have billions of dollars in cash and armies of lawyers that will allow them to iron out licensing agreements and preserve interoperability across their key products.

But an Oracle victory could drag software development back into a world of silos, in which only the software built by a single vendor or across a consortium of powerful vendors would be able to enjoy the benefits of interoperability that have made the modern internet so compelling. Such a victory could create a new tax on software development, just as software becomes indispensable to the modern economy.

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