Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

#121

Post by judk »

rayiner wrote: post #32
acqq wrote: post #28

Signed by 1. Harold Abelson.* 2. Alfred V. Aho 3. Tom Ball.* 4. John Perry Barlow 5. Brian Behlendorf 6. Richard A. Belgard 7. Jon Bentley 8. Matthew Bishop 9. Joshua Bloch 10. Dan Boneh 11. Gilad Bracha.* 12. Eric Brewer.* 13. Frederick Brooks 14. Rick Cattell 15. Vinton G. Cerf.* 16. William Cook 17. Ward Cunningham 18. Mark Davis.* 19. Jeffrey Dean.* 20. L Peter Deutsch 21. David L. Dill 22. Les Earnest 23. Brenda…

I think it was a tactical mistake to include the folks affiliated with Google. Amicus briefs are supposed to be from parties who have an interest in the dispute, but not a personal stake in either party. Including so many people affiliated with Google will come across negatively.

Everyone who owns a mutual fund has a stake in Google.

Re: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

#122

Post by throwawaykf05 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #89
dragonwriter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's a "method of operation" in the context of computer programs? The more dangerous question is "what is a computer program except a method of operation?"

That isn't really a problem. You can have two programs that do the same thing, e.g. BSD cat and GNU cat, but you're copyrighting the specific implementation rather than the method of operation. Each method of operation can have arbitrarily many different implementations.

By that logic, copyrighting APIs is not really a problem either: Each API can have arbitrarily different concepts, paradigms, organization, and naming and calling conventions. Hence even APIs for doing the exact same things can (and do) look completely different from each other. Compare, for examples, the Java APIs with those for C++, C#, Python, Ruby, Go, etc. etc.

Re: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

#124

Post by raldi »

Fargren wrote: post #118
jobu wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Book Titles are not copyrightable, even though they are arguably the most important part of a creative work. While APIs are not a clear analog to titles, they are a huge exception to the copyright law, and it seems like APIs need this exception as well.

So if I were to write a book named A Game of Thrones, under the pen name George R. R. Martin, would it be permissible by law to publish it?

As far as copyright law is concerned, yes.

However, you would be in violation of trademark law.

Re: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

#125

Post by gdwatson »

judk wrote: post #123

Why was Microsoft's J thing an illegal Java bastardization, but Google's Dalvik/Android is not?

Microsoft had licensed Java, and had agreed to the terms of Sun's trademark license, including compatibility terms. Google avoided licensing Java entirely, hence the lawsuit.

Re: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

#126

Post by throwawaykf05 »

DannyBee wrote: post #113
rayiner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, if you did so, the fact that you ended up with the same API means you have removed any expressive portions, and are left with purely functional constructs and short names. That presupposes that there is nothing expressive in the structure of the API itself, beyond the names. But the combination and structure of calls in an API is an expression in and of itself, as evidenced by the fact that the same func…

"That presupposes that there is nothing expressive in the structure of the API itself, beyond the names. But the combination and structure of calls in an API is an expression in and of itself, as evidenced by the fact that the same functionality (e.g. file access) can be expressed in many different ways." By this argument, everything ever, including my shopping lists are creative expression and copyright eligible. Co…

> By this argument, everything ever, including my shopping lists are creative expression and copyright eligible.

I'm not sure that necessarily follows, but if you do use creative expression in write your shopping list, why is it not copyright-eligible? Just because it's a "shopping list"? Where do you draw the line?

And what if you no creative expression is involved in writing some code... is it not covered by copyright?

Is a "Hello World" program copyright-eligible?

Is a FizzBuzz program copyright-eligible?

Is a library that implements atoi and itoa copyright-eligible?

Is a program simply implementing a detailed spec copyright-eligible?

Is a service implementing PageRank copyright-eligible?

> This would extend copyright far into the realm of methods and processes.

I'm sure you know this, but copyright expressly excludes protection for functionality (leaving that to the realm of patents), and isn't that what methods and processes are?

Re: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

#127

Post by thirdtruck »

kumarm wrote: post #110
pjmlp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has issued a do not sue statement.

That is not good enough. Sun Was bought by Oracle and things changed. If Microsoft declines further, whats stopping from Oracle or someone else repeating the same?

Estoppel. Since everyone acted in good faith when they availed themselves of Microsoft's pledge, the court will look very poorly on an attempt by Microsoft to rescind it.

Re: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

#128

Post by analog31 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #109
jrochkind1 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's lots of previous caselaw in the U.S. suggesting API's are not copyrightable, basically on the theory that functionality itself, as well as factual statements or descriptions of something, are not copyrightable. For instance, if you write a recipe, the -exact text- of that recipe is copyrightable, but the actual recipe itself is not -- someone else can reword it in their own words, with the same basic ingredie…

Actually a recipe can be copyrighted for it's content as well as patented. Pharmaceuticals do it all the time, the biggest problem of copying a drug is not breaking what its made off but how is it made which is exactly what a recipe is. You can run skittles, coke, or Viagra trough a mass-spec and get exactly what they are made off but it won't get you any closer to understanding how to make them. Pharmaceuticals pate…

Drug companies patent both compounds and processes.

Your post seems to argue for patenting an API, not copyrighting it. I can't think of why an API can't be a patentable process. The claim tree might be rather complex.

Re: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

#129

Post by vegedor »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #88

Many in this thread seem to be wondering about the legal argument itself -- that API's being copyrightable is inconsistent with existing pretty well-established law. Which is, yes, a different thing than arguing about whether it's "a good idea" for society or innovation or whatever. The EFF summary focuses on the "good idea" thing, but the actual amicus brief addresses both -- although I bet you can find even more of…

>>functional requirements for compatibility” between computer programs “are not protected by copyright

This was in regards to Accolade (game company) reverse engineering, and reimplementing the software side of the security procedure of the sega genesis for third-party game cartridges. Following the source leads nowhere to an explanation of the quote. Must be a pretty trivial notion.

Still interesting case, though. First of all, it's puzzling that they just talk about "functional" requirements and concepts. "Well, what isn't functional?", said the Haskeller.

>The TMSS initialization code is a functional feature of a Genesis-compatible game and Accolade may not be barred from using it.

>Functional features of a product are features ‘which constitute the actual benefit that the consumer wishes to purchase, as distinguished from an assurance that a particular entity made, sponsored, or endorsed a product.’”

I don't, what? Are they basing copyright-eligability on consumers' ability to understand features that interact to form other features? How is the Trademark, that was shown as part of the security check (only on consoles newer than the games), precluded from that desire?

>Accolade did not seek to avoid paying a customarily charged fee for use of those procedures, nor did it simply copy Sega’s code; rather, it wrote its own procedures based on what it had learned through disassembly

Wait, did they pay a fee to use the procedures? What's the case about again? Then, reimplementation is based on the understanding derived from the translation of the object code. Translation is prohibited under copyright, except for fair use. The fair use here is interpretation of an idea and expression of the same idea in different semantics, translation for short. Never mind the irony, surely there wasn't any commercial gain involved, so it's still somewhat fair use. Apparently, a security check that can be broken isn't a commercial advantage, so, its defeat is no benefit. It's defeat is only lawful, because it isn't copyrightable in the first place.

This is so messed up, it just doesn't make sense.

Re: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted

#130

Post by monkeyninja »

jobu wrote: post #48
spullara wrote: post #43

In a world where people copyright the laws you are supposed to follow I can't imagine they won't let people copyright an API that absolutely is a creative work. Instead we should accept that they can be under copyright but make implementing and using them explicitly fair use.

Book Titles are not copyrightable, even though they are arguably the most important part of a creative work. While APIs are not a clear analog to titles, they are a huge exception to the copyright law, and it seems like APIs need this exception as well.

API is more like the table of content of a book, not titles. Titles would be like the website name.
Post reply on HN