Why are they asking? Why do they care what the Trump Administration thinks about the copyrightability of APIs?
Last time around, the Obama administration suggested that the Supreme Court not hear the case, and they didn't. I'm hoping that the Trump administration decides the opposite, if only out of spite for Obama...
Shouldn't the supreme court specifically _not_ ask any other branch if they should review a case? Isn't that the point of independent branches of government?
This was my thought. They are an equal branch of government. They have no business asking the legislative or executive for guidance. Their purpose is to decide cases like this.
Congress and the Executive consult with each other, work on co-authoring laws, and plan together all the time. It isn't that weird that the Supreme Court would talk with the other branches.
It struck me as odd as well, but the article mentions near the end that it apparently does happen from time to time, which I was not aware of. I share your viewpoint, though. Not sure why the USSC would ever ask the executive branch whether or not it should hear a case. The justices are more than capable of determining if it warrants their time.
I suspect the reason for the request is that this could have a significant and unexpected downstream effect should they hear the case and end up ruling in an unforeseen manner. They could conceivably alter the copyright laws in serious ways that no one wants.
That being said, I still think they should probably never ask for guidance like this because the effect of their ruling is not their problem. They need to uphold the law. If there are unforeseen, undesirable consequences then it is the job of the legislative branch to rectify that. This is what happened with the Affordable Care Act. The USSC was given testimony that confirmed the language, meaning, and reason behind one of the key portions - the requirement that states must implement their own exchange to receive Federal subsidies for healthcare to pass along to the newly insured citizens. This became a major issue because a large number of states didn't create their own exchanges but the Obama administration still wanted to dole out the subsidies. Instead of upholding the law as written in clear language and which was confirmed by the actual writers of that section of the bill, they instead did the exact opposite and basically ruled that since ruling to uphold it as-is would essentially destroy Obamacare, they would have to allow the subsidies because that one clause would effectively destroy the entire program since the states didn't take it up as expected (but not required). What should have happened in that scenario is that the USSC should have upheld the language as written, which would have forced the legislative branch to actually change/fix the law with an amendment. But this was no longer politically possible and the court knew that, so they instead ignored the law and basically re-wrote it - which is a power they don't actually have.
The point of independent branches is to avoid concentration of power through distributed checks and balances. In what way is the authority of the Supreme Court or the Executive being checked here? This is just decorum.
I would contend that the definition of the word "interface" is, in essence, interoperability.
> a point where two systems, subjects, organizations, etc. meet and interact.
An interface is that which allows two systems to work together, in conjunction. That is, interoperability:
> the ability of equipment or groups to operate in conjunction with each other.
Whether or not the intent of our legal code is to allow for drop-in-replacement interoperability of systems is something I have no domain knowledge with which to comment.
That’s a pretty useless definition. In this context interoperability means being able to substitute one product for another because they have the same API. Sometimes this is the intent (e.g. SQL). Sometimes not.
Considering that an API is a mere symbolic/semantic gateway closer to a mathematical expression, I'm sorry, your interpretation would seem to be more useless. Nothing says the underlying functionality exposed by an API has to functionally line up. I could implement a persistence layer through Pair(K. V) or any other myriad sets of logic, but just because I use that set characters to render that API in a virtual machine, I should be open to extortion?
Programming languages, and API's in particular are useless alone. This is just an attempt to try to monetize a gigantic segment, which if allowed will lead to an inevitable fracturing of just about every semantic convention behind an ever growing wall of lawfare.
It's bloody math. Stop trying to treat it like a bloody Widget.
For God's sake, you're saying Oracle should be able to gatekeep
Pair(K key, V value).
Great. So as long as anyone uses that Oracle gets to sue them? Great way to hobble the industry.
Or are you seriously going to try to make the argument that all we need to do is change the package names/method signatures of the entire JDK without altering it structurally and we're gold?
This is a space where legalese starts to enter its' own butthole without reconciling what you're trying to do with what you're actually doing.
“Look, having Java — my uncle was a great professor and senior developer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, MIT, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the Oracle deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these copyrights are — Java is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 20 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the Java VM —it used to be real, now it’s virtual — but when it was real and even now, I would have said it’s all in the API; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but Google are great negotiators, the Google are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
It's asinine that this has gone on for so long. These giant corporations will do whatever is in their best interest and crush anyone they can underfoot.
I doubt Google particularly cares about copyrightable APIs, sans their in the sights. They're more than large enough to create their own languages and whatnot and would probably like to prevent others from interoperating with their software, as they do with websites that try to offer access to Youtube without going directly through Google.
I guess I don't know a lot about how the Supreme court works, but is this normal? I know that the president is the one who appoints the justices, but it's not like Donald Trump is a lawyer, or a programmer; he's ostensibly an economics major and outside of some demagogical diatribe in one of his speeches where he probably claims that all of this is simple, he's not qualified to say whether the Supreme court would hear this.
This is a "call for the views of the Solicitor General", which is a pretty routine step, routine enough for SCOTUSblog to refer to it by the acronym of CVSG.
Also, note that it's not specifically asking Donald Trump for his views.
Administrative Law is the key here. Departments within the executive branch set their own guidance on certain topics, this is known as Chevron deference[0]. Congress has pushed the details about a lot of our laws onto the executive branch, which is why the FCC, EPA, and others are able to change their rules and make companies/the-public adhere to new rules that didn't happen due to a new law.
27 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 73.9 ms ] threadLast time around, the Obama administration suggested that the Supreme Court not hear the case, and they didn't. I'm hoping that the Trump administration decides the opposite, if only out of spite for Obama...
I suspect the reason for the request is that this could have a significant and unexpected downstream effect should they hear the case and end up ruling in an unforeseen manner. They could conceivably alter the copyright laws in serious ways that no one wants.
That being said, I still think they should probably never ask for guidance like this because the effect of their ruling is not their problem. They need to uphold the law. If there are unforeseen, undesirable consequences then it is the job of the legislative branch to rectify that. This is what happened with the Affordable Care Act. The USSC was given testimony that confirmed the language, meaning, and reason behind one of the key portions - the requirement that states must implement their own exchange to receive Federal subsidies for healthcare to pass along to the newly insured citizens. This became a major issue because a large number of states didn't create their own exchanges but the Obama administration still wanted to dole out the subsidies. Instead of upholding the law as written in clear language and which was confirmed by the actual writers of that section of the bill, they instead did the exact opposite and basically ruled that since ruling to uphold it as-is would essentially destroy Obamacare, they would have to allow the subsidies because that one clause would effectively destroy the entire program since the states didn't take it up as expected (but not required). What should have happened in that scenario is that the USSC should have upheld the language as written, which would have forced the legislative branch to actually change/fix the law with an amendment. But this was no longer politically possible and the court knew that, so they instead ignored the law and basically re-wrote it - which is a power they don't actually have.
Arguably they don't have the powers they _do_ actually have. The constitution is very vague on the role of the court.
> a point where two systems, subjects, organizations, etc. meet and interact.
An interface is that which allows two systems to work together, in conjunction. That is, interoperability:
> the ability of equipment or groups to operate in conjunction with each other.
Whether or not the intent of our legal code is to allow for drop-in-replacement interoperability of systems is something I have no domain knowledge with which to comment.
Programming languages, and API's in particular are useless alone. This is just an attempt to try to monetize a gigantic segment, which if allowed will lead to an inevitable fracturing of just about every semantic convention behind an ever growing wall of lawfare.
It's bloody math. Stop trying to treat it like a bloody Widget.
For God's sake, you're saying Oracle should be able to gatekeep
Pair(K key, V value).
Great. So as long as anyone uses that Oracle gets to sue them? Great way to hobble the industry.
Or are you seriously going to try to make the argument that all we need to do is change the package names/method signatures of the entire JDK without altering it structurally and we're gold?
This is a space where legalese starts to enter its' own butthole without reconciling what you're trying to do with what you're actually doing.
I doubt Google particularly cares about copyrightable APIs, sans their in the sights. They're more than large enough to create their own languages and whatnot and would probably like to prevent others from interoperating with their software, as they do with websites that try to offer access to Youtube without going directly through Google.
Also, note that it's not specifically asking Donald Trump for his views.
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)
> 1. Whether copyright protection extends to a soft-ware interface.
> 2. Whether, as the jury found, petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
In other words, is the Federal Circuit appeals court off of its rocker.