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

101–110 of 170 posts

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

#101

Post by GeneralMayhem »

darkstar999 wrote: post #93
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 thought Guido van Rossum was with Google now.

He was, but has since moved to Dropbox.

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

#102

Post by rayiner »

DannyBee wrote: post #96
rayiner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This is not a case where you're digging around in the weeds trying to figure out which function does what. You don't need to be a computer scientist to understand the legally-relevant concepts in a case like this. Especially at the appellate level, where you're working with high-level concepts, and where you have people with the relevant technological background submitting amicus briefs explaining the con…

"The lynchpin of copyright is originality and creativity. Are the Java API's original and creative? That's the only relevant question.[2]" This is 100% false of course. My shopping lists are creative and original, but certainly not copyrightable. You know it's not the only question, and not even the most relevant one (which is whether the structure, sequence, and organization part of an API is the copyrightable part,…

> You know it's not the only question, and not even the most relevant one (which is whether the structure, sequence, and organization part of an API is the copyrightable part, or whether the literal implementation only is protected).

To me, an "API" is just the "structure, sequence, and organization part," distinct from the implementation. I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replace all the types with typedef'ed names and get a different API. So the question is whether that (whatever you call it) is copyrightable. And under 17 USC 102, how you answer that question is to look at whether that is original and creative.

> 1. API's are not expressions of anything. They are literally interfaces. An outline of a story in abstract terms is not copyrightable. The actual story is. Such should it be with API's. API's are not copyrightable, their implementations are. 2. The fact that it is hard work and requires careful thought is 100% irrelevant in united states copyright law, since we have no sweat of the brow doctrine.

Of course, but something being hard work and requiring a lot of thought is indicative of whether it requires originality or creativity. Take, for example, the POSIX file API's. That specific combination of orthogonal function calls, the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality. And it's a distinct creative expression from, e.g., the Win32 file API's, which express similar functionality in a very different way.

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

#103

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #73
ewillbefull wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Copyright Act states: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." The common belief is that an API meets this "system or method of operation" standard.

Hmm... What's a "method of operation" in the context of computer programs? This isn't helpful: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Method+of+oper... I really don't understand how an API is a method of operation in any sense. It's an understanding between people about how to use a software library. The only sense that I could see it being a method of operation is literally "This is a description of how you o…

>* But in that case, why are instruction booklets copyrightable, but not software APIs?* //

The instructions themselves are not copyrightable only a specific presentation of those instructions.

So if I create a new recipe for a dish. You can include that recipe in your book but you can not include the specific presentation - so you should rewrite in your own words, not duplicate my layout, not copy my picture without permission, but you are free to recreate the recipe as it's a method of preparation rather than a form of presentation. Now arguably my layout of the dish could be copyright too so you may have to plate it differently.

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

#104

Post by pbhjpbhj »

rayiner wrote: post #102
DannyBee wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The lynchpin of copyright is originality and creativity. Are the Java API's original and creative? That's the only relevant question.[2]" This is 100% false of course. My shopping lists are creative and original, but certainly not copyrightable. You know it's not the only question, and not even the most relevant one (which is whether the structure, sequence, and organization part of an API is the copyrightable part,…

> You know it's not the only question, and not even the most relevant one (which is whether the structure, sequence, and organization part of an API is the copyrightable part, or whether the literal implementation only is protected). To me, an "API" is just the "structure, sequence, and organization part," distinct from the implementation. I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replac…

>* the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality* //

If you pass the file descriptors because that looks pretty, because of the beauty of the form and not for any functional effect. And, if the same functional effect (if there is one) can be achieved in other obvious and equally functional ways, so the only reason to do it this way is aesthetic, then yes - the essential elements are creative.

Just because you can achieve the same technical outcome in a different way doesn't make this way specifically creative however.

If an obvious way to create a specific technical effect creates a specific art-like outcome too then it's probably not copyrightable. Tyre treads, say: if your tread is created to appear different and there's no other reason to make it that way then you're covered by copyright; but if they have a technical benefit and you don't have other IP protection (patent or design patent) then others are free to duplicate that design because they are allowed to generate that technical outcome and the visual "artistry" is subordinate to that it's emergent rather than being directed.

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

#105

Post by DannyBee »

rayiner wrote: post #102
DannyBee wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The lynchpin of copyright is originality and creativity. Are the Java API's original and creative? That's the only relevant question.[2]" This is 100% false of course. My shopping lists are creative and original, but certainly not copyrightable. You know it's not the only question, and not even the most relevant one (which is whether the structure, sequence, and organization part of an API is the copyrightable part,…

> You know it's not the only question, and not even the most relevant one (which is whether the structure, sequence, and organization part of an API is the copyrightable part, or whether the literal implementation only is protected). To me, an "API" is just the "structure, sequence, and organization part," distinct from the implementation. I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replac…

" I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replace all the types with typedef'ed names and get a different API"

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.

". And under 17 USC 102, how you answer that question is to look at whether that is original and creative."

Sorry, but no. The fact that something is original and creative does not, by itself, make something copyrightable in any way, shape, or form.

"Of course, but something being hard work and requiring a lot of thought is indicative of whether it requires originality or creativity."

It 100% is not indicative of this. It is hard work to compile address lists and phone numbers into the white pages. It requires a lot of thought to think through physics and math problems, and write down equations.

Neither is subject to copyright protection.

"the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality. "

However, as a concept, it is one completely and totally ineligible for copyright protection.

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

#106

Post by pbhjpbhj »

mooph wrote: post #99
xorcist wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code can implement an API, but an API is not code. Not using any reasonable definition of code. Code is something you are theoretically able to execute, in one way or another.

OK, for some time I've lived in one file projects (PHP) where I've defined interface and in the same file implemented the code itself, so I've seen too little difference... Maybe in other projects the difference is sharper. Is MOOPH module copyright protected?

>Is MOOPH module copyright protected? //

Most likely yes. Because you gave it a specific implementation that is not required to make it work. The functionality - and any elements of the module that spring directly from that functionality - is not copyrightable.

If you gave a programmer pseudo code for your module and they created near enough the same module from it then the creative elements don't lie in the aesthetic art and so the copyright in it is very weak.

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

#107

Post by pdabbadabba »

stonogo wrote: post #22
pdabbadabba wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and remember that each justice has an office full of clerks who will typically be in their late 20s and early 30s advising them.

The problem is the reprehensible ageism inherent in claiming older people are not capable of understanding technology. The same ageism you are implicitly supporting by "reassuring" us that young people (hence, magically tech-savvy people) will have input.

A bit shrill, I think. I don't think it's ageist to acknowledge that a lot of technologies didn't exist when older people were born and, thus, they are less likely to be familiar with them. That doesn't make them dumb, it's just an accident of history. And certainly I think that a good lawyer (and amici) should be able to explain anything the justices need to know -- the justices, whatever else you may think about them, are very intelligent people and surely capable of understanding just about anything, given sufficient time, regardless of their age. (Though this time caveat is a significant consideration. Overcoming that restriction is largely what clerks are for.)

None of this is inconsistent, though, with it's being beneficial that there are additional very smart younger people, who may be more likely to be familiar with newer technologies just in case their perspective becomes relevant.

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

#108

Post by pron »

magicalist wrote: post #77
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #69

Quick question: Why can't an API be copyrighted? My understanding is that the purpose of a copyright is to protect a specific arrangement of ideas. A piece of music, a book, a painting. All of those things are an arrangement, and the arrangement itself is what's protected by copyright, not the physical object that was created. So, given that an API is an arrangement of ideas, and that copyright apparently protects ar…

One thing that many in the tech world get hung up on is the idea that this is arguing that designing APIs is not a creative endeavor. That's not what's being argued here. There are many creative acts which are not covered by copyright, and the argument is that APIs are one of them, since they are a functional description (the "method of operation"/"functional requirements for compatibility" covered by ewillbefull). I…

> it's saying that as a method of operating that code, they aren't copyrightable

That's an argument I could never understand. And remember, even though the term API has been borrowed in the past few years to mean "protocol", API in the context of this case pertains only to its classical meaning. As such, a specific API is indeed a method of operating code, but also a very elaborate text -- including specific class names and method names (and a specific ordering of parameters). None of the names is essential for replicating the functionality of the code. For example, String.length() could have just as easily been named string.len() or Str.size(). Because Googles "JDK" isn't actually the JDK -- and therefore does not interoperate with any actual JDK classes -- but simply a copy of them, the names, organization, etc. are absolutely not necessary in order to operate Google's code. Google's code was never meant to interoperate with Java, but to replicate it (once they've disregarded Java's GPL license this may not matter, but they've also broken the JDK's license in other ways, namely, they've made a partial, incompatible implementation). How, then, is the API being "a method of operating code" relevant to the matter at hand?

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

#109

Post by dogma1138 »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #82
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #69

Quick question: Why can't an API be copyrighted? My understanding is that the purpose of a copyright is to protect a specific arrangement of ideas. A piece of music, a book, a painting. All of those things are an arrangement, and the arrangement itself is what's protected by copyright, not the physical object that was created. So, given that an API is an arrangement of ideas, and that copyright apparently protects ar…

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 patents as well as patents in other industries like cosmetics and the food industry are all about the "recipe".

As far as API goes it's slightly more tricky but it's also something that needs to be thought off as they allow your competition to replicate functionality and directly take business from you by being compatible to every business partner you currently have.

Take for example the S3 API there are 100's of "Cloud Management Solutions" now that take advantage of the S3 API, as well as 1000's of developers already familiar with it's syntax and function. Now you want to set up your own cloud computing provider so you replicate the API for your own systems, under the hood they might be completely different but as far as integration goes they are identical. While some might say well you can't copyright expressions and syntax others might say Amazon invested millions in developing their API, perfecting it's interoperability, investing money in partners and early adopters to get tools out there and get it to catch now you are coming and reaping all the benefits without investing anything whilst stealing potential costumers from Amazon.

API need to be open to survive, however as things go there should be a way for companies to control how and who implements them especially on the server side.

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

#110

Post by kumarm »

pjmlp wrote: post #52
hdra wrote: post #44

Quick question, where do Mono/Xamarin or similar projects stand on this whole API copyright? Aren't they essentially writing a library with the same API as the .NET or other single-platform framework? Or am I misunderstanding what they meant with API in this case?

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?
Post reply on HN