It’s more complex than that. Copyright only forbids copying. Truly independent arrival at the same work isn’t actionable. So if the only overlap in code is this sort of coincidental or “there is really only one way to do this” situations, you shouldn’t be found liable.

Think of it like I Want To Hold Your Hand by the Beatles. I bet 500 songs used the line “I feel happy inside,” but it’s not copyright infringement.

But if steal half the lyrics, it’s infringement. Same would be true for APIs, if they are found to be copyrightable.

> “there is really only one way to do this” situations

In the context of building API compatibility, there is indeed only one way to do this so this ruling would mean any attempt at compatibility is a copyright violation.

IANAL but even if it's determined that APIs are copyrightable, `add(...)` would almost certainly be considered public domain. There's no way to track down the original author, and whoever it was never claimed ownership

It couldn't enter the public domain until 2116 unless the original author explicitly released it, which they did not because almost nobody does that.

Then who does the copyright belong to? Why that date?

120 years after the first version of Java was published. It would be owned by Oracle.

I was referring to the add(...) function

int add(int x, int y);

Can I get a corporate lawyer's salary now