APIs are copyrightable under a CAFC decision notionally applying 9th Circuit law in this case which the Supreme Court declined to review because, pending the resolution of other issues, they viewed it as not ripe for review. Since this is not within the CAFCs special subject-matter domain (patents or any of the other areas which bring a case within it's jurisdiction; this case is at CAFC because to once had patent claims even though they are no longer live), this ruling doesn't seem to be binding precedent on any lower court. So, it's “law” in only a very weak and tenuous sense.

Well, I would love to hear about a circuit court case that says otherwise. Seriously, I have no idea, but I do not believe such exists.

Basically it's not the law yet and may never be the law.

Uhh. No. At least under any interpretation I know about what the law "is."

It's neither express in the statute nor is it in case law binding on any court, because while CAFC decisions are nationally binding, that is only on the subject matter uniquely assigned to the CAFC, but that doesn't include copyright. Those are claims the CAFC decided under 9th Circuit case law in a case that is in its jurisdiction because it once had patent claims, even though those claims aren't active. Had the actual 9th Circuit ruled this way, it would be 9th Circuit case law, but the CAFC applying (notionally) 9th Circuit case law doesn't create new 9th Circuit case law. It doesn't even create precedent binding on future CAFC panels, even if those panels are themselves applying 9th Circuit case law. It is at most persuasive authority, rather than binding authority, in any future case, so it is only “law” in the sense that, e.g., scholarly treatises on the law are “law”.

So, barring this case being both heard and affirmed by the Supreme Court, this interpretation of copyright law, while potentially decisive in the outcome of the present case, isn't, substantially, law, so much as an idea of what the law might be.

Bugs are a red-herring to the discussion. Bugs doesn't get you out of copying. The question is: did you copy or not? Google argued "we certainly did copy but APIs can't be copyrighted." Which was not the law at the time they did the copying and is not the law now .

Except it is the law now and then that APIs aren't copyrightable according to the court that's generally supposed to handle such things, in this instance The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. They've ruled plenty of times on the matter, and have developed decades of case law stating that implementing APIs is totally kosher. Sony v. Bleem is great example. There the appeals court ruled that not only could Bleem ship a PS1 emulator with reverse engineered APIs of the kernel (explicitly as a commercial venture even!), but they could port it to a competitor's game console (the Dreamcast), and use Sony's IP in screenshots.

But, because Oracle v. Google case had an ancillary patent question in an earlier appeal, the appeals are instead going to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court is really only supposed to answer patent questions. The CAFC can't set precedent in these matters, and overwhelmingly defers to the district courts' precedent. Bot for some reason they have chose to ignore all of that this time and make their own, fresh (and super weak) precedent that only applies to copyright cases with patent questions.

I bet if one looks hard enough he would find links between these judges and moneyed interests tracing back to Oracle.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. CAFC judges just tend to be appointed (at least a little) for how much of a hard on they have intellectual property rights in general. The whole circuit was setup pretty much only to do patent appeals for the most part. The judges probably just think of themselves as 'principled'. And they are technically allowed to do this, despite it being kind of a dick move.

>APIs aren't copyrightable according to the court that's generally supposed to handle such things, in this instance The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

That is just not true. According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction.

> According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction.

The Federal Circuit has the right to hear and decide this particular case, but they do not have the right to establish binding precedent on lower courts or other appeals courts in matters of copyright law. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

>not only could Bleem ship a PS1 emulator with reverse engineered APIs of the kernel

Not all types of reverse engineering is considered copying. See IBM PC BIOS cases.

There weren't "IBM PC cases". All of that work was based on Apple v. Franklin, a 9th circuit case that held that APIs aren't protected by copyright.