They did appeal, and the Supreme Court pretty much said they didn't want to look at this until a trial took place on the fair use question. Now that that's happened, I assume there will be another appeal to the Supreme Court.
But even if it's not, the decision needs to be appealed. Right now the situation is that APIs are copyrightable, but only for sure within one of the US Federal Court districts. In the other districts, they may be copyrightable. Or they may not be. If they aren't, then we have different law applying in different districts until the Supreme Court decides to resolve the issue. A Supreme Court decision now, one way or the other, would at least give resolution. (If they decide that APIs are copyrightable, then we'd have different law in the US and Europe, but at least it would be the same law everywhere in the US.)
[Edit: Apparently this isn't in a district court, it's in the Federal Circuit, which handles patent cases.]
This is a very important nuance. As I understand it, for the issues in this case that are outside the Federal Circuit's usual jurisdiction (patents), the Federal Circuit was supposed to rule however the local circuit (Ninth) would have ruled. The Ninth Circuit probably wouldn't declare APIs copyrightable, but the Federal Circuit did.
However, the Federal Circuit doesn't establish binding precedent for the Ninth Circuit on non-patent issues. That's part of why the Supreme Court didn't take up this case, and why many of the amicus briefs recommended against the Supreme Court taking up the case. Google gets screwed, but that ruling didn't have cause an immediate upheaval of copyright law in the jurisdiction that includes Silicon Valley and Redmond. All that their decision really established was an incentive to include bullshit patent claims in any copyright suit that pertains to APIs, so that you can get your appeals heard by the Federal Circuit instead of your local circuit.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-side...
I wonder what will happen this time.
When the Supreme Court was considering Google's petition to hear the case, the court asked the White House to voice an opinion—where by "White House administration", you mean the Solicitor General.
That's not "weird"; that's a normal part of the job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_Unite...
The point is, nuance matters. If you're physically attacked and defend yourself in a way where you end up killing the guy, you claim that your actions were justified. You don't go to court claiming that killing people is just not a problem.
Here's how this case should go:
0. Oracle sues Google for copyright infringement.
1. Courts find that the design of APIs is an expression resulting from substantial creative decisions far above the low bar we already have for precedent, and therefore they're copyrightable.
2. Google defends themselves on the claim that, creativity notwithstanding, merely implementing a public API should not subject an implementor to the consequences of copyright infringement, and that there are no damages owed here.
And by every indication, we're right on track.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949839
And it looks like you're moving the goalposts and shitting out two-second replies, anyway, so I'm done commenting further here.
Nothing weird with that. APIs are meta tools, not actual tools. That's what "I" in the name is for. They are interfaces for a reason. It makes perfect sense for interfaces to be non copyrightable. EU courts got it right:
Computer code itself can be copyrighted, but functional
characteristics—such as data formats and function names—
cannot be. "To accept that the functionality of a
computer program can be protected by copyright would
amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the
detriment of technological progress and industrial
development
We are not, until Supreme Court will overturn the current ruling and will clear APIs from copyrightability for good.
> I'm done commenting further here.
Sure, you brought no arguments to defend the illogical position of APIs copyrightability anyway.
[...]
> And by every indication, we're right on track.
You're leaving out the step where the district court found that APIs aren't copyrightable, but the district court was overruled by an appeals court that normally has no right to rule on such matters and does not set binding precedent on such matters. If Oracle's now-dead patent claims hadn't been included in their original complaint, then the process you describe would likely have ended Oracle's case at step one with the Ninth Circuit upholding Alsup's ruling on API copyrightability.
Second: That's a stretch. To argue that the case would have stopped at the Ninth Circuit is to argue that because the Supreme Court denied Google's petition to reverse the Federal Circuit, then they would have denied Oracle's petition to reverse the Ninth Circuit. That's a junk argument.
That's not the argument I'm making.
The Supreme Court had several procedural reasons for not granting Google's petition for certiorari: the Federal Circuit's decisions were not setting binding precedent outside of this particular case, and there were still issues to be decided by the lower courts that included avenues for Google to prevail, making it unnecessary for the Supreme Court to render a landmark decision on the matter of API copyright.
If the appeals had gone to the Ninth Circuit, Google's appeal would have stood a much better chance than it did before the Federal Circuit. A Ninth Circuit decision in the matter would have set a very important precedent, but a decision in favor of Google would not have created any obvious circuit split and wouldn't have upset the status quo of the software industry. On the other hand, a decision in favor of Oracle would potentially have consequences serious enough to be a priority issue for the Supreme Court whether or not it created a circuit split.
Go on, finish the thought, and make your conclusion explicit. Because by any reasonable reading, you're suggesting that the Supreme Court would not have granted Oracle's petition if Google prevailed in the Ninth Circuit. And yet you start by saying that this isn't your argument. Be explicit.