81–90 of 771 posts
>Oracle, for example, re-implemented Amazon's S3 API so that customers who built software for Amazon's cloud platform could easily switch to Oracle's rival cloud platform. So if Oracle wins here, they will get fu xx ed by Amazon?
Who knows. Does Amazon implement any of Oracle's APIs? This ruling is about to make the software patent mess look like a walk in the park.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.
Staying in this analogy, aren't APIs more like pictures or verbal descriptions of the facade of the building? An API spec will not (necessarily) provide you with any internal implementation detail. Architectural diagrams/design specifications very likely will do.
I read somewhere that they were planning to but didn't due to SUN's hardware business. They should have sold that business off to another company and kept the software side of it.
> 2) Also realize that the SCOTUS' job is not to decide what's right, but to decide what's legal given the constraints and allowances of both the Constitution and law. Even if a Justice were to feel like copywriting APIs would have terrible knock-on effects, she would be compelled to rule in favor of granting them if she believed that the laws passed by Congress required it.
So much of the arguments were specific to the Google/Oracle incident and not as much about the implications except for the thing about QWERTY and perhaps some vague analogies. I thought at the SC level it should always consider 'terrible knock-on effects' and act accordingly considering but not strictly bound to what came before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.
Design specs like door sizes, sink arrangements etc are not copyrighted. You're probably thinking about the reproduction of the design document, not adherence to the specifications that document describes.
My intuition says that it's... somewhere in-between?
Maybe we get lucky and the SCOTUS ruling comes down against uncopyable API's. But while that seems questionable at the moment, it's important to remember one thing: there is always an "out" even in the "nuclear option" case and that is "have Congress change the law". It seems to me that now is the time to start thinking about putting together a mass effort to get Congress to change copyright law, to establish clearly…
« Any legislation dealing with either computer or photocopying issues enacted and based upon these recommendations should be subject to a process of periodic review. »
This might not just be a disaster for Google - it could be a disaster for software everywhere. If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? Supreme court judges just do not have the conceptual framework to properly adjudicate this. I don't think it's going to be possible to teach them the difference between interface and implementation within the parameters…
>> If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? That has implications for language implementations too. Who would own the standard library for any given language? What about programs that call API functions? Are they derivative works too? An API is necessarily functional first and foremost. It would cause chaos and some weird dystopian future if Oracle wins.
Require copyright assignment or a guarantee for royalty free use by any implementation. Standards committees already have to deal with hidden patent dependencies someone might sneak in so this would just be another bullet point on paperwork that should already exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> If APIs become copyrightable, what happens to any open source software the implements a proprietary API? That has implications for language implementations too. Who would own the standard library for any given language? What about programs that call API functions? Are they derivative works too? An API is necessarily functional first and foremost. It would cause chaos and some weird dystopian future if Oracle wins.
The standard library is owned by the people creating it, and of course your work using the standard library is a derived work of that standard library. For example, glibc is owned by GNU, and it is licensed under the LGPL, so you are allowed to dynamically link it without having to release your own code under the GPL (or compatible). This is all happening today. The only projects that will be more seriously affected…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. That would probably be considered fair use. 2. The amount of money Oracle would get back (and going forwards) in licensing fees for Android would probably dwarf most financial prospects from any API reimplementations that might be at risk.
> That would probably be considered fair use. Why would that be considered fair use, and Google's not be? As far as I can tell it's exactly the same situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play devil's advocate: Architectural diagrams/design specifications for physical buildings are copyrightable. The implementation is obviously whatever the builder does. But in general, I think that is a pretty close analogy to APIs and implementation code. APIs also capture some sense of overall system design as well. So that may lend further credence to support copyrights.
I disagree that the IRL analogy of API is architectural diagrams. A better analogy for API would be an agreement on how to communicate what needs to be done (and what has been done) between two persons. The aggregate effect of that over thousands of people is a working system, coordinated by the mastermind (programmer) who dictates the actual orchestration of the entire system. If API is copyrightable, I'd love to be…