Open APIs are the new software patents

I agree completely with the general proposition that APIs are similar to patents in the incentives it creates to open up data (similar to opening up knowledge) while retaining control through the T&Cs (similar to the monopoly granted through patent). The result is also similar in that APIs are spurring a wave of innovation just like we saw in the industrial revolution.

A few points worth bearing in mind: 1) There is no monopoly, so ultimately no API provider can abuse their power without limit 2) This is reinforced by the fact that the API interface itself cannot be patented (though some have tired and disputed it in courts), so one provider can be replaced by another 3) Nevertheless some API providers with strong market power (e.g. Twitter) have trampled on the rights of API consumers (even if they were legally within their rights as described in the T&Cs)

Ultimately it is up to us in the API community to recognize good API practices, and to bring down those API providers who abuse their power.

One major complication with that for modern web applications is that many don't consider sending javascript to the client as distributing the software (as it is not distributed as a whole) which most putting such software out there under the GPL would assume that the client side code counts as distributing the library to the end user just as much as sending it in a compiled executable would.

Moving beyond the multiple typos, broken English, and weird linebreaks, which are extremely distracting and majorly detract from the author's points --

Author's analogy (Prop. APIs == Patents) is completely false.

    These juridical and technical restrictions and 
    business dependance [sic] with specific licensing
    defined by ToS are a new kind of patent.

I call bullshit! If anything, APIs are protected by copyright law, which prevents copying.

Not to mention that a patent is protected by the state (hint: that's why it's called the United States Patent and Trademark Office), whereas Terms of Service are contracts between private parties that are entered into voluntarily.

The basic right of a patent is that of exclusion -- i.e., excluding others from "practicing" your invention (usually defined as producing, offering for sale, or importing).

However, if you don't like some company's API, there are perfectly legal ways to clone the backend service and construct an API that is basically identical.

If there is a monopoly power on behalf of proprietary APIs, it's created by market inertia and NOT by a state-granted artificial legal monopoly.

I'm getting a little sick of non-lawyers getting away with posting stupid analogies with linkbaity titles. If you want to attack the patent system, fine. But please, for the love of God, do 10 minutes of research first.

>there are perfectly legal ways to clone the backend service and construct an API that is basically identical.

>If there is a monopoly power on behalf of proprietary APIs, it's created by market inertia and NOT by a state-granted artificial legal monopoly.

Or it's created by the investment necessary to retool everything to work with a "basically identical" API which cannot be substantially identical. I wonder if they'll be a market for people that come up with synonyms so that companies offering an identical service with entirely different codebase can avoid duplicating copyrighted calls. Maybe we can download shims from torrent sites?

No, you generally can't distribute them with out sharing your changes. Big difference.