Hacker News Reader

That seems correct: whether copyright law in principle covers copyright of APIs is a question of law rather than fact.

And, more importantly, the judge is far more well-versed with both the tech and the law side of things to be in a position to make a more-informed and accurate ruling on the matter.

Show me a judge that can write Hello World in Java without Googling it.

I'm a C++ programmer and I can't write Hello World in Java without googling it.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403292,00.asp

Under questioning from Oracle lawyer Michael Jacobs, Reinhold contended that "each page of the [Java] language specification includes a copyright notice,"

"Page, 39, testified over the course of two days, claiming that Google only used elements of the Java programming language that are freely available in the public domain. But after being admonished from the bench for evasive responses to Oracle questioning, the Google CEO finally admitted that his company never obtained a license to use Java code in its own software."

Having a copyright notice does not mean it's copyrighted, though. Rural Telephone Service Co. probably had a copyright notice in their listings too, but the court still found it uncopyrightable.

If Google were publishing copies of that specification, that would be relevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com