| TL;DR: If the translator is not infringing then API copyrights are meaningless
since Google can just add the translator as a front-end to their build
tool-chain.
You raise a good point on whether an auto-translator program
would infringe the API copyright or not. In my OP I argued that you will run
into severe problems either way.
It would only take about a day to rename the
APIs and write a simple translator. If the translator is not infringing then
API copyrights are almost worthless. All the existing Dalvik application source
code would still be able to be used and all new applications could be written
using the Oracle APIs. If you look at the Dalvik build tool-chain as a
black-box then the new build chain using the translated APIs and the translator
front-end would be identical (as far as input --> output is concerned) to the
existing, infringing Dalvik build chain. Therefore, logically, if API
copyrights are to have any meaning then a simple word for word translation
scheme must still infringe somehow.
There is another problem that is
stickier. If the auto-translator is just translating from one set of names to
another for example:
sed
's/java./android./g'
then the SSO of the API you are
translating to will be identical to the SSO of the orginal API. The judge
specifically said the names were not covered by copyright, only the SSO is
covered. If you only change the names, the SSO remains intact. Therefore,
assuming the SSO of an API can be copyrighted, a simple name translation won't
suffice to get around API copyright.
You would actually have create a new
API with a different SSO. This might be tricky because no one besides Oracle
knows what the heck the SSO of an API really is and Oracle's not telling because
letting on to what they are specifically suing about would ruin their
case.
This also means that Oracle would actually have copyright over the
ideas expressed in the API and not the API itself. Anyone who implements
an API with similar functionality to a subset of Oracle's APIs would be
infringing even if they use totally different names.
I will reiterate my
conclusion. If the translator scheme is not infringing then API copyrights are
worthless. If the translator scheme is infringing then API copyrights are
over-broad. Therefore in a logical, sensible world API copyrights cannot exist.
Unfortunately, this case is being decided in a court of law so all we can do is
cross our fingers and hope and pray that the outcome will be logical and
sensible in the real-world.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that
there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
