Thread by @charles_duan

I listened in on the #googacle #oraclevgoogle #googlevoracle argument this morning but didn't live-tweet since there were excellent threads by @sarahjeong @M_F_Rose @design_law and others. Go read those, and then here are a few more thoughts…

@sarahjeong @M_F_Rose @design_law The argument started confused but seemed to converge later. Optimistic read: Oracle's arguments were so confusing, the justices couldn't ask good questions. More likely: everyone was at sea and just waiting for one good analogy to latch onto, which apparently was QWERTY

@sarahjeong @M_F_Rose @design_law The analogy latching-on effect is one I've seen before in patent SCOTUS arguments, but often it leads to stray irrelevant lines of thought. Interesting that the QWERTY analogy questions did manage to stay largely on point (as much as anything was on point in this argument)

@sarahjeong @M_F_Rose @design_law The justices also seemed more dependent on external evidence in amicus briefs of what exactly their decision could do. That's a lesson for amici: In factually confusing cases, briefs on impact seem more relevant than briefs trying to yet again explain facts

@sarahjeong @M_F_Rose @design_law Finally, whether Oracle likes it or not, this is a case about interoperability, specifically the ability of a competitor to reuse interfaces in competition with a dominant product. That's...kind of a big deal these days, in the House Judiciary report most recently

@sarahjeong @M_F_Rose @design_law Indeed, in other concentrated markets such as telecom and electronic health records, regulators have specifically stepped in to increase interoperability, even occasionally overriding IP to do so (h/t @tnarecha)

@sarahjeong @M_F_Rose @design_law @tnarecha So regardless of what happens but especially of Oracle wins, this could be the rare copyright case where Congress is *already* motivated to legislate in this space, in ways that could go further than what a win for Google would give

@sarahjeong @M_F_Rose @design_law @tnarecha That isn't to say that SCOTUS should defer to Congress—deference should mean preserving industry expectations—but it would be a mistake to treat this case as an idiosyncratic one between two tech giants that will be of minimal effect, as the SG seemed to want

@sarahjeong @M_F_Rose @design_law @tnarecha Final thought: I think I caught a mention of SQL in the argument. If so, that's a big thumbs up for @binarybits's story, and it was worth my skipping dinner to pull Oracle's historical archive at @sanjoselibrary (who has the best staff, thanks!) arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…