Nowadays when it comes to IP squabbles, the IT industry can't help but be a little jaded -- even when tech titans take to the courtroom. However, the copyright case between Oracle and Google has cloud computing innovators fearing the fallout.
At issue are Oracle's copyrights surrounding Java application programming interfaces (APIs), 37 of which the company accuses Google of misappropriating for the Android operating system. On Monday, a jury in California concluded that Google violated Oracle's copyrights in a partial verdict that was anything but cut-and-dried.
The split-decision left one crucial question unanswered. Did Google's use of the Java APIs constitute fair use?

Free-Wheeling Cloud APIs

Barring uses that compromise the integrity of their platforms or run afoul of law enforcement, IT companies generally like to take a hands-off approach to their APIs in order to grow their platforms, spark market adoption, and build healthy, revenue-generating ecosystems around their technologies. In the cloud provider market, Amazon stands as a prime example.
Amazon's APIs are widely used by startups and established cloud services alike. They have helped foster innovation that, in part, is currently driving a massive amount of IT investments in cloud infrastructures and supporting software. That's why Amazon raised eyebrows in March when it officially sanctioned Eucalyptus's use of its AWS APIs for private and hybrid cloud deployments.
As viewed by industry watchers, the move is indicative of Amazon's strategy for bringing more enterprise customers into the AWS fold by eliminating legal and technical uncertainty. It's also an attempt to fend off competing -- and relatively unrestricted -- cloud technologies like the open source OpenStack platform.
Lingering in the air is the possibility that one day Amazon won't like how another firm is using its APIs and take legal action. It's a scenario that can have devastating effects on the IT industry, experts warn.

Will Clouds Go Dark?

In the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) reaction to the Oracle v. Google case, staff attorney Julie Samuels states that in the EFF's view, Google made fair use of the Java APIs. She also spells out the fundamental issue that exists at the intersection of copyrights and APIs.
She writes, "Here's the problem: Treating APIs as copyrightable would have a profound negative impact on interoperability, and, therefore, innovation. APIs are ubiquitous and fundamental to all kinds of program development. It is safe to say that all software developers use APIs to make their software work with other software."
The effects of enforcing copyrights on APIs can be devastating to the burgeoning cloud market, according to George Reese, Chief Technology Officer for enStratus Networks, a cloud management specialist. He told Wired Enterprise that copy-protected APIs "would put any company that has implemented the Amazon APIs at risk unless they have some kind of agreement with Amazon on those APIs."
At the very least, following Oracle's lead on APIs could erect costly barriers to entry for cloud companies.
In his examination of the verdict for Wired Enterprise, Robert McMillan wrote that the "case could give Amazon legal grounds to seek licensing deals from OpenStack users such as Hewlett-Packard and Rackspace." OpenStack mimics Amazon's APIs, as does Citrix's CloudStack and middleware from Jclouds and Fog.
Despite this case, Samuels says that the courts already have clear guidelines when it comes to copyrights and APIs.
"Setting aside the practical consequences, there’s a perfectly good legal reason not to treat APIs as copyrightable material: they are purely functional. The law is already clear that copyright cannot cover programming languages, which are merely mediums for creation (instead, copyright may potentially cover what one creatively writes in that language)."

Google is updating Chrome OS in a bid to make the open source cloud-focussed operating system more user friendly.
Google released Chrome 19 for Chrome OS late Tuesday, featuring a redesigned user interface and improved Window Manager. Google has also improved on the number of supported file types and provides an overall refresh of the Chrome OS settings.
Chrome OS first debuted in 2009 as an network based operating system that is tightly coupled with Google's online services. With Chrome OS, users need to always be connected to the Internet and access application by way of the Chrome browser that is the cornerstone of the operating system.
In 2011, Google expanded the vision of Chrome with the official release of the Chromebook reference architecture for hardware. Multiple hardware vendors including Samsung adopted the model and released Chromebook notebooks into the market.
Now the model for Chrome OS is expanding to thin computing with the debut of the Chromebox. The Chromebox is built by Samsung and is a small footprint device that can be connected to up to two external monitors. The device includes 6 USB ports of connectivity and is powered by an Intel Core processor supported by 4 GB of RAM. List price for the new Chromebox is $329 USD.
The Chromebox is being joined by a new generation of Chromebooks that will also benefit from performance gains.
"The new Chromebook and Chromebox, based on Intel Core processors, are nearly three times as fast as the first-generation Chromebooks," Go
ogle stated in a blog post. "And support for hardware-accelerated graphics, a built-from-scratch multi-touch trackpad and an open-source firmware stack provide a much faster and more responsive computing experience."
While Chrome OS is all about using the Google Cloud and its associated apps as a way to un-tether users from the traditional computing model, Google now has a solution for those that still want access to a traditional PC too. The Chrome Remote Desktop Beta, provides a remote VPN into a user's desktop that provides access to a PC or Mac.

Members of the developer community, particularly coders that are working on new cloud services, are breathing a huge sigh of relief after a federal judge delivered a ruling in the Oracle v. Google court case.
"Innovation for the win," wrote Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staff attorney Julie Samuels after Judge William Alsup ruled in Google's favor during the closely watched case over the company's use of Java APIs in its Android mobile operating system. Alsup, who revealed during the trial that he was an experienced programmer, invalidated Oracle's argument that Google violated its Java application programming interface (API) copyrights.
In his 41-page opinion, Judge Alsup determined:
"This order does not hold that Java API packages are free for all to use without license. It does not hold that the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be stolen.  Rather, it holds on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act.  Therefore, Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization is DISMISSED."
Addressing the companies' disagreement over Google's use of an identical command structure, Judge Alsup wrote, "Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation is different." Therefore, he writes, "When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression."
Alsup concluded that as a matter of law, copyright does not extend to APIs. "This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted.  Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability," concludes Alsup.
Oracle is appealing the decision. For now, the ruling should give cloud companies peace of mind, if not outright delight.
Clouds Float Free
Ostensibly waged over smartphone technology, the Oracle v. Google legal battle had industry-wide reach. Siding with Oracle, experts claim, would have resulted in a profound -- many claim a negative -- impact on virtually the entire IT industry, and the growing cloud computing market in particular.
EFF's Julie Samuels responded to the ruling on the group's blog. "The court clearly understood that ruling otherwise would have impermissibly – and dangerously – allowed Oracle to tie up 'a utilitarian and functional set of symbols,' which provides the basis for so much of the innovation and collaboration we all rely on today," she wrote.
APIs, which essentially govern how software interoperates with other software, are the glue that holds cloud software services together. They are responsible for much of the "innovation and collaboration" that cloud services bring to the market today.
Free and largely unfettered use of cloud APIs has contributed to a vibrant cloud services ecosystems like Amazon's AWS platform and an explosion in infrastructure and software spending. Claiming copyright on APIs could have undermined that progress or at least threaten to make cloud computing a costly proposition for startups and entrepreneurs, assert experts like George Reese, Chief Technology Officer for cloud management specialist enStratus Networks.
In his ruling, Judge Alsup averted a cloud crisis. It helped that he was well versed in both coding practices and copyright law, according to Julie Samuels. "It's a pleasure to see a judge so fundamentally understand the technology at issue," writes Samuels.
This familiarity and insight undoubtedly helped him navigate the thorny issues surrounding the case and arrive at the appropriate, innovation-friendly conclusion, opines Samuels. She adds that "Oracle’s attempts to shoehorn its upatented APIs into copyright law were met with the proper rejection."