111–120 of 771 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I would wholly expect Amazon to sue over S3 implementations by Oracle, IBM for SQL, etc. I would want the whole industry to target Oracle. Get their pound of flesh.
I started reading this article today thinking that the case was clear-cut - Oracle's wrong and Google is right. As I read the article and the comments I'm now not at all sure. We all are trying to come up with a good analogy to explain why APIs are distinct from implementations, why it's 'obvious' to a programmer how they're distinct, and how their rules should be distinct. But the more I think about it, and read fee…
I could easily come up with dozens of analogies that explain this concept in terms understandable by senior citizens, and it’s inexcusable that this lawyer can’t do the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is usually in the interest of the designer of the API to have as many users as possible. BUT in this case we are talking not of using part of an API (say the Math library to implement a physics engine is assembly and link it) but of reimplementing a whole language which has, as of today an when the events discussed took place (even if we agree to hate it) an owner.
>It is usually in the interest of the designer of the API to have as many users as possible. When they first design and publish it yes, but Oracle didn't design and publish the Java APIs, they bought them after they had becomes very popular and widely used. At that point they don't need to care about making it popular, it already is, all they care about is milking that existing ecosystem for every penny they can get.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
APIs being copyrightable doesn't actually harm implementations of APIs that fall under fair use. (Fair use exemptions specifically apply to copyrighted things.) Interoperability is fair use. And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Things like WINE or NES emulators or the like would fall very comfortably into…
Sorry, but this is not an accurate summary of the state of the law. Whether Android's implementation of Java was fair use is one of the questions the Supreme Court is considering. Google was absolutely trying to achieve interoperability with Java, so if Google loses it would make it more difficult for others to claim fair use. Fair use is complicated so others might succeed where Google failed, but a loss for Google…
I don't think this is such an easy argument. Google's interest was ultimately the bottom line.
Without discussing the copyrightability, from a strictly monetary perspective, APIs are product that, in this case, has a very high monetary value (market share == $$$), and Google chose it for this very specific reason (developers == market share == $$$). Again, I don't imply that copyrightability is good or bad, but the entire matter has been about money, and strictly from that perspective, ownership has a sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. Is that not what blueprints do?
I'd say API is closer to a protocol or a contract than it is to architectural blueprint.
> 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 of these arguments. I mostly agree with you, but let's give credit where credit is due. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from TFA: > "[...] since 1992, [courts have said] the application-programming interfa…
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…
Any real solution will have to be legislated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would wholly expect Amazon to sue over S3 implementations by Oracle, IBM for SQL, etc. I would want the whole industry to target Oracle. Get their pound of flesh.
Same but I think the problem is tech people don't buy Oracle products on purpose, suits do that.
Honestly, companies shouldn't be worried about the FANG's, because they will create alliances and largely refrain from suing one another. It's the never-ending, death-by-a-thousand-cuts onslaught from trolls that will murder small/medium outfits.
The east texas troll court is going to have a boom like it was 1840s California just to support all the litigation in our near future -- if this passes.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
APIs being copyrightable doesn't actually harm implementations of APIs that fall under fair use. (Fair use exemptions specifically apply to copyrighted things.) Interoperability is fair use. And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Things like WINE or NES emulators or the like would fall very comfortably into…
Sorry, but this is not an accurate summary of the state of the law. Whether Android's implementation of Java was fair use is one of the questions the Supreme Court is considering. Google was absolutely trying to achieve interoperability with Java, so if Google loses it would make it more difficult for others to claim fair use. Fair use is complicated so others might succeed where Google failed, but a loss for Google…