In thought Oracle should have won this case as well and the opinion basically affirmed the reasoning but went the other way. The basis for Oracle winning was that copying the Java API for interoperability with developers rather than for existing software was copying for Java’s beauty rather than being purely functional.
Whenever this case came up on HN people outright refused to acknowledge that one’s intentions even mattered when copying an API.
> copying for Java’s beauty rather than being purely functional
How would "beauty" be defined here. In the context of copyright, it would seem to apply to aesthetic beauty, but I'm not sure that applies to code (despite all sorts of engineers using the metaphor for theirs or others work).
I would imagine it would hinge on the simplicity/elegance of the organized structure of the APIs? We tend to prescribe the term beauty to language features that are easier to use and implement in a novel way compared to the languages that came before.
I'm not sure that is the same use of the word "beauty" as used in copyrighted materials like books and art, since APIs are machine blueprints, whose primary and fundamental purpose is functional, not aesthetic.
Similarly, though a mechanical engineer might describe a particular gearbox design as beautiful doesn't make it copyrightable, since it's fundamental purpose is also not aesthetic.
The QWERTY layout isn't the best but everyone makes their keyboards the same layout. QWERTY isn't beautiful nor the most effective, it's functional and familiar.
Whenever this case came up on HN people outright refused to acknowledge that one’s intentions even mattered when copying an API.