Comment by jcranmer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcranmer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There is already a long list of amici curiae filings at SCOTUS asking them to look into this case and helping inform them: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/google-llc-v-ora...

This is still in certiorari phase (i.e., SCOTUS hasn't decided whether or not to hear it), but there's already 15 separate briefs filed all urging SCOTUS to hear the case, and only Oracle is opposing it. There's nothing you can do at this point to urge SCOTUS as to whether or not to hear it.

Assuming that SCOTUS will hear the case (which is probably pretty likely--this is a Big, Important IP question which means the only reason not to hear it is if there's a better case coming along soon to hear it), the best chance at influence is an amicus curiae at that point. Talking to your company's legal representation is probably the best bet to get on one of the amicus curiae, but if you don't have any legal experience, you're probably not going to be capable of writing an effective amicus.

There is also the not-unlikely possibility that the court takes the case but then rules in an extremely narrow way that leaves open the larger question about the copyrightability of APIs.

The petition for certiorari has to explicitly lay out the questions that are to be answered by SCOTUS. In this case, the questions are: (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.

Considering that SCOTUS is being very directly asked to rule on the copyrightability of APIs (and fair use, if they are copyrightable), not reaching the question is pretty much only possible if they dismiss the case as improvidently granted.

It appears they denied the previous petition from Google in 2015. Why is this one different?

One possible answer: the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to district court for further proceedings, and there would be another chance for appeal after those proceedings completed. SCOTUS may have decided to kick the can down the road. From what I understand, this is not uncommon; complex cases sometimes offer multiple opportunities for appeal, and higher courts will sometimes decide to say "no" to the earlier opportunities even if they eventually say "yes" to one of the later ones. Sometimes, higher courts like to let things play out more fully at the lower levels, since it allows the record and arguments to further develop, and so they feel they have a better foundation to base their own decision on. (Plus, with a huge workload, there is something to be said for delaying taking on something big as long as you can.)

(IANAL, this is just the best guess of a layperson.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com