The thing that stands out from an *extremely* quick skim of the decision is that they've determined that this is a successful fair use defense. I think that means that they've determined that copyright holds for the API, but that a use of that API in implementing it can be defended under fair use.
This would be a middle ground sort of thing -- Oracle could still sue on the basis of copyright infringement, and the defendant would have to build a case around fair use, rather than just having the suit thrown out immediately or having Oracle bearing the burden of proof. So that kind of sucks, but it should cut down on a lot of potential cases, and this case should serve as a fairly straightforward template for any such defense.
...but I Am Not A Lawyer either, so I'm curious to see what the Actual Lawyers write about it. I follow Kyle Mitchell and Heather Meeker's blogs and I imagine they'll have something to say.
no subject
This would be a middle ground sort of thing -- Oracle could still sue on the basis of copyright infringement, and the defendant would have to build a case around fair use, rather than just having the suit thrown out immediately or having Oracle bearing the burden of proof. So that kind of sucks, but it should cut down on a lot of potential cases, and this case should serve as a fairly straightforward template for any such defense.
...but I Am Not A Lawyer either, so I'm curious to see what the Actual Lawyers write about it. I follow Kyle Mitchell and Heather Meeker's blogs and I imagine they'll have something to say.