Read on Twitter
The Post coverage of today's Oracle v. Google decision gives a good overview of the case and its import. But after years of litigation, I believe there's a backstory that should be better understood. (1/9) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-google-oracle/2021/04/05/9572a480-7778-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html
2/9 The pro-interoperability position now widely shared across industry was largely developed in the 1990s, by a group called the American Committee for Interoperable Systems (ACIS). ACIS stood for the principle that nothing in copyright should impede software interoperability.
3/9 Two of ACIS' more active supporters were Oracle and Sun. This is because one of the primary concerns of ACIS members was the ability to interoperate with the widely used Microsoft ecosystem. Not surprisingly, Microsoft was cool to the ACIS perspective on interoperability.
4/9 The pro/contra interoperability fight played out in policy fights worldwide for ~20 years, as told in extensive detail by @BandJonathan in his "Interfaces on Trial" books. (vol. 1 here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07QF5DNGT ) Ultimately, courts & policymakers coalesced in support of "pro".
5/9 For this reason, many copyright lawyers scoffed at Oracle's position when it first brought suit. Not necessarily because it was inconsistent with the company's previous stance (though it was), but because the issue was regarded by many as settled some years ago.
6/9 But that long-standing consensus was cast into doubt when the Federal Circuit ruled for Oracle. By the time the case reached the S.Ct., developers were wondering if industry incumbents might start demanding licenses for unlicensed interoperation previously considered fair.
7/9 Notably, even companies that once took a dimmer view of fair use-enabled interoperability, like Microsoft, filed briefs bolstering the pro-interoperability position. Microsoft and Oracle had essentially traded places on the principle in the span of <20 years.
8/9 The reason for these shifting perspectives is best explained by asking who must interoperate with whom? Firms worried about interoperating w/ incumbents want balanced copyright rules that don't function anticompetitively. Firms in an incumbent position often want 'strong IP.'
9/9 An interoperability rule mitigates against IP digging an unintended moat around the incumbent du jour. Today's ruling lessens the risk that copyright is subverted from its utilitarian role, and that's a win for smart copyright law & smart competition policy.
