61–70 of 170 posts
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?
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…
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 softw…
But that isn't a technical argument. If it had some empirical support it might be an economic one, but it's mostly just an ideological argument. One that, I might add, many software engineers would disagree with.
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 law…
This isn't necessarily bad (fire safety experts writing a model fire code, e.g.) but it does have the effect of putting the law under copyright.
APIs that simplify DDOS attacks from sites with JavaScript should not be copyrighted?
I don't understand how copyright would help in this case.
I don't think it's a good idea to turn off copyright protection of APIs, moving all of them to public domain. Some of them may be "public bad" instead of "public good" if they don't get managed using license agreements.
This world where judges are effectively used to write laws is bullshit and it sucks. Judicial activism sucks ass. Judges are not supposed to be lawmakers. If API's should not be protected by copyright then we should be writing letters to actual lawmakers who can write that explicitly into law. Not rely on interpretation of political appointees. Urgh.
> This world where judges are effectively used to write laws is bullshit and it sucks. Judges aren't writing laws - they're doing their job to "act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and precisely defining the broad language"[1]. There's a difference between "Judicial activism" and Common Law working as intended. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#States_of_the_Unite...
Map makers should just copyright the lines that represent the borders of states, counties, and cities. Heck, copyright lines, points, and legends too.
Who says they don't? http://www.esri.com/legal/redistribution-rights
For anyone who wants to look at some pretty maps: http://leaflet-extras.github.io/leaflet-providers/preview/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This world where judges are effectively used to write laws is bullshit and it sucks. Judges aren't writing laws - they're doing their job to "act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and precisely defining the broad language"[1]. There's a difference between "Judicial activism" and Common Law working as intended. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#States_of_the_Unite...
People treat judges as a way to write laws. Many judges like to use their powers to make rulings on what the law should be rather than is. So I'd strongly argue that yes, in a roundabout way judges are in fact writing laws.
So, given that an API is an arrangement of ideas, and that copyright apparently protects arrangements of ideas, why is copyright inapplicable here?
If the argument is that copyrights shouldn't apply to APIs, then I understand. It's probably more harmful than beneficial, and thus should be prevented. But if the argument is that copyright is incompatible with the domain of APIs, as if you were trying to copyright a taste like chocolate or copyright a smell, then I don't understand that at all. Would anyone mind clarifying?
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).