While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming.
One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use:
> To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on whether Google’s use of those lines was a “fair use.”
That said, this case does establish a precedent that if your copying of an API is primarily for purposes of matching an interface so that developers can reimplement it, you're in fair use territory:
> Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment.
I'll count that as a win, on balance.
One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" The court skirted that question, and instead focused on whether it was fair use:
> To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on whether Google’s use of those lines was a “fair use.”
That said, this case does establish a precedent that if your copying of an API is primarily for purposes of matching an interface so that developers can reimplement it, you're in fair use territory:
> Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment.
I'll count that as a win, on balance.