Following the Supreme Court's decision not to review Oracle's copyright infringement case against Google for modeling their Android smartphone platform on Java APIs, some are suggesting this will stifle innovation and interoperability in software development.
According to Fortune, the case will now return to a lower court to determine whether Google's utilization of Oracle's APIs amounts to "fair use." It suggests Google is likely to prevail on that question, but that even so, the Supreme Court's decision to send the case back is bad news for developers.
Bad news for developers?
"For developers, who have long assumed APIs are outside the scope of copyright, the Oracle ruling adds a new layer of legal risk to their work activities," Fortune says. "At worst, some companies could seize on the Oracle finding to threaten copyright litigation against a broad swath of the software industry."
As noted by the academic news website The Conversation, Java has grown over 20 years to become one of the most widely used programming languages in the world by being cross-platform and primarily open. "But now it seems it ends in a trap," the site says.
It warns that the case could have a massive impact on the software industry, in which even using a button on a window could necessitate licensing and fees. "For software developers, it's a horrible thought," The Conversation says. "Copyrighting APIs would lock many companies into complex agreements—and lock out many other developers from creating software for certain platforms."
Certainly, any threats toward openness and interoperability could spell trouble for healthcare IT along with the rest of the software industry. Developers will have to either avoid any APIs that are not specifically licensed as open, get permission to use them in advance, or take their chances on whether they might end up in court.
The upside
Not all predictions are so dire, however.
One industry executive suggests a decision for Oracle wouldn't stifle innovation, but rather open up new lines for developers/companies to monetize aspects of their APIs. He notes that it wouldn't preclude companies from offering their APIs as they do now for all to use. "Really, I don't think it's too different from one developer saying I'm doing open source and I love everybody vs. another saying, I'm doing standard commercial license," the anonymous source told Healthcare Dive.
While Oracle wants to be compensated by Google for their use of the Java APIs, they also want developers to continue to write to their "open" platform. "In other words, Oracle wants a slice of Android like Microsoft has," the source suggests. "I think Oracle wants Google to pay up, possibly IBM, but for small developers will say, you're good to go and no license requirements."
The bigger concern is likely to be the legal fees and morass that could result from the outcome of this case, the source suggests. He adds that any companies that do choose to "license" their APIs to others will be putting themselves in a tight position. However, he adds, "I think there could also be some very interesting modes which emerge based upon the ultimate value those APIs provide... and companies will pay based upon that value."
The situation is the opposite of that in Europe. As noted in Ars Technica, the EU's highest court ruled in 2012 that APIs can't be copyrighted because that would "monopolize ideas."