Who owns java api

Regarding a partnership between Google and Android, Schwartz said that Sun wanted Google to pay a big license fee to call its phone a Java phone, and join Nokia, Motorola, Blackberry RIM and others in developing apps that run across all the platforms.

Sun would profit by enlarging the Java community and creating more of a barrier to competition with the likes of Microsoft at the time.

For Sun, Java was a brand that was inseparably a part of Sun and its profitability, Schwartz wrote in a blog post dated August 23, :. The partnership with Google did not work out, even though Sun was willing to pay to have Google onboard with its Java platform. Basically, Sun did not want to cede control of managing the key components in the Java stack, and Google wanted more control over its destiny.

Schwartz was asked why, given the lack of a partnership with Google, he applauded the announcement of Android in a blog post which is viewable on Schwartz's personal site on Sun's web site on Nov. Without the Java community, Google would have to "reinvent a whole community," Schwartz said. For example, developers could use Sun's Java developer tools NetBeans to write applications. Sun developed JavaFX , which could run on top of the Android stack.

There are limits to what copyright covers. You can't copyright a simple recipe, for example, or a list of instructions. Google will argue that's essentially what the Java APIs are; they're an instruction manual for building a Java implementation, not a copyrightable expression in their own right.

Here are the latest Insider stories. More Insider Sign Out. Sign In Register. Sign Out Sign In Register. Latest Insider. Check out the latest Insider stories here. More from the IDG Network. Oracle's dangerous claim: APIs can be copyrighted. Update: Oracle gets partial win in Android lawsuit against Google.

Developers fear they'll be stifled by judgement in Oracle-Google suit. How to choose a low-code development platform. We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.

To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy. Google used the API to let Java programmers build Android apps, which the court declared is a fundamentally transformative use. The decision is meant to be specifically focused on APIs as a category. The ruling hinges largely on the ways that API code enables new creative expression, something fair use doctrine is supposed to promote.

In the dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued the court was creating an untenable distinction between implementing code which was established as subject to copyright in a previous ruling and declaring it. The result of this distorting analysis is an opinion that makes it difficult to imagine any circumstance in which declaring code will remain protected by copyright. In , a federal appeals court ruled that the APIs could be subject to copyright in a controversial decision overturning a ruling by Judge William Alsup.

Oral arguments for the Supreme Court case were held in October , turning on a variety of florid metaphors for what the APIs represented. They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can. Subscribe to get the best Verge-approved tech deals of the week.