>See, I'm not 100% sure about this. This could be Google spreading FUD to gain popular support
Well, the core of the case is if APIs are copyrightable or not. One could not care less about Google and still want a negative verdict on the matter.
>IANAL, but couldn't the ruling say that simply implementing an API is fair use, but the way Google did it isn't (because it's not quite compatible, or because it's too compatible, or because it was done in bad faith after they'd failed to obtain a license, or for whatever reason)
Even that would be bad.
If they keep it as clear-cut as "APIs are not copyrightable, period" it's good for anyone.
But if instead the courts muddies this to "APIs are not copyrightable, but you can be convicted if you copy them /in bad faith/not compatible enough/too compatible/whatever" then you can never really be sure.
Whatever pulls the law towards a more restrictive interpretation of the APIs are not copyrightable is bad, because it sets a precedence (a, so called "Overton window").
PS. I don't much like the notion of "FUD". A corporation could be spreading lies, sure. But FUD smells too much like a relic of some GNU-zealot parlance from the 90's Microsoft Wars. To me it's as dated as "information superhighway", and doubly confusing.
Well, the core of the case is if APIs are copyrightable or not. One could not care less about Google and still want a negative verdict on the matter.
>IANAL, but couldn't the ruling say that simply implementing an API is fair use, but the way Google did it isn't (because it's not quite compatible, or because it's too compatible, or because it was done in bad faith after they'd failed to obtain a license, or for whatever reason)
Even that would be bad.
If they keep it as clear-cut as "APIs are not copyrightable, period" it's good for anyone.
But if instead the courts muddies this to "APIs are not copyrightable, but you can be convicted if you copy them /in bad faith/not compatible enough/too compatible/whatever" then you can never really be sure.
Whatever pulls the law towards a more restrictive interpretation of the APIs are not copyrightable is bad, because it sets a precedence (a, so called "Overton window").
PS. I don't much like the notion of "FUD". A corporation could be spreading lies, sure. But FUD smells too much like a relic of some GNU-zealot parlance from the 90's Microsoft Wars. To me it's as dated as "information superhighway", and doubly confusing.