Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court to Rule APIs Can’t Be Copyrighted • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 5:28 PM UTC

flebron wrote: post #36

rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, it's just a background fact that Google employs a lot of well-known computer science figures. So this was bound to happen unless they explicitly forbade them from signing this, which I also don't think is good.

[deleted]

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

#42

Post by musesum » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 5:30 PM UTC

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.

I find "30. John Gage" interesting in that he was Chief Scientist at Sun. I always thought that Google's Dalvik was a hack around Sun's business model for Java, in bypassing the need to license JVM. The fact that John Gage signed the brief seems to imply that he considers Google's hack to be less ominous than Oracle's attempt to change the game.

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

#43

Post by spullara » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 5:33 PM UTC

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.

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

#44

Post by hdra » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 5:38 PM UTC

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?

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

#45

Post by nitrogen » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 5:53 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #25

DevX101 wrote: post #3

Although these issues are very important, something feels wrong about having the Supreme Court justices (avg. age ~70) rule on tech matters like this. We need a new legal system for arbitrating disputes in technical disciplines overseen by a panel of technical experts. Or perhaps a trial by jury where the selection criteria is employment in the relevant discipline for at least 10 years (academia or corporate).

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…

simply does not care about whether finding API's to be copyrightable hinders interoperability or cloning of software.

That is exactly why a legal professional is the wrong person to decide the issue. I've written plenty of APIs myself, and when it comes to interoperability, anybody should be free to reimplement the same interfaces, no matter how creative my design. Anything else would destroy competition in the software industry and promote a virtual dystopia of vendor lock-in.

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

#46

Post by aragot » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 5:58 PM UTC

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.

> copyright the laws

That's an excellent point. If you run a service, you can use someone else's TOS and apply it to your customers. It is the outcome of intellectual work, for instance a lawyer's work, and it is under copyright. However, it is not clever to reuse someone else's contract anyway and you'd better use a lawyer to check its terms.

Therefore I don't think the wording of contracts, norms, standards and laws should fall under copyright/patent.

Think about a US law writer prosecuting Germany for "a law which proceeds the same way as one which was established in US" under patent infringement.

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

#47

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 6:01 PM UTC

snarfy wrote: post #2

Map makers should just copyright the lines that represent the borders of states, counties, and cities. Heck, copyright lines, points, and legends too.

[deleted]

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

#48

Post by jobu » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 6:01 PM UTC

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.

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

#49

Post by wmf » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 6:09 PM UTC

musesum wrote: post #42

rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find "30. John Gage" interesting in that he was Chief Scientist at Sun. I always thought that Google's Dalvik was a hack around Sun's business model for Java, in bypassing the need to license JVM. The fact that John Gage signed the brief seems to imply that he considers Google's hack to be less ominous than Oracle's attempt to change the game.

The Java class/jar file formats are inherently slow and Dalvik's dex code fixes that problem. I don't think the licensing hack would have worked since you can't escape patents by making syntax changes.

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

#50

Post by wmf » Sat, Nov 08, 2014, 6:12 PM UTC

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?

Yes, this case is highly relevant to Mono/Xamarin, although in practice I think it would be suicide for Microsoft to start suing people who clone their technology. Note that Miguel de Icaza is a signatory.