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

71–80 of 170 posts

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

#71

Post by ewillbefull »

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…

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.

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

#72

Post by musername »

baldfat wrote: post #17
waterlesscloud wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could a group with exceptionally sharp minds who have lived through 7 decades of intense technological and social change possibly have better perspectives than people who have lived through 2?

They all are EXTREMELY intelligent people! BUT the issues presented can be lost and then we are dependent on the staff of the justices who explain issues and then the bias of the people "educating" the justices have a HUGE influence on the justices.

Is it not the staff, but expert-witnesses? Of course the influence of the technical advisory is subjective, so is the judge's. Arguably, more subjectivity levels out the preciseness of the judgement, it's a compromise, but certainly not unwelcome, when jury is invited to weigh out bias with it's own necessarily biased opinion. You can't get that out of the equation, because ...

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

#73

Post by sillysaurus3 »

ewillbefull wrote: post #71
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…

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 operate the software library." In other words, an API is an instruction booklet for people, not computers. But in that case, why are instruction booklets copyrightable, but not software APIs?

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

#74

Post by ewillbefull »

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…

Honestly, just read the brief, it goes into detail the precedent involved in their argument: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/07/google_v_oracle_compute...

for example...

Ninth Circuit law—which should have been controlling in this case—was the same: the “functional requirements for compatibility” between computer programs “are not protected by copyright.” Sega Enters., Ltd., v. Accolade, Inc.

Also, an API is much more than you think. An API might be Windows' system APIs which applications use to interact with the operating system -- put a license behind that and WINE is gone overnight. An API is also totally indistinguishable from a network protocol, in both a technical and legal sense.

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

#75

Post by christianbryant »

While I personally fully support this, I wonder if we shouldn't be doing this in two stages, where the first stage is that we ask the penalties for perceived AIP copyright or intellectual property infringement be modified. Multi-million and multi-billion dollar lawsuits continue to be sickening in a world where these dollar amounts could be used to save human lives. Long live FLOSS, but we need to also be strategic and remember who our audience is.

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

#76

Post by Blazespinnaker »

wmf wrote: post #50
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.

Miguel/Xamarin is a very strong partner of Microsoft as well :)

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

#77

Post by magicalist »

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). It's not saying that API design is an incidental and uninteresting byproduct of the design of software, it's saying that as a method of operating that code, they aren't copyrightable.

Incidentally, that may mean that these APIs could be covered by patents, but Oracle's patent argument in the original suit was extremely weak and so they dropped it, so it wouldn't be relevant to this case.

It would also generally be very difficult to get patents on APIs without the Federal Circuit working a whole lot more of their patent-expansion magic.

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

#78

Post by marcosdumay »

mooph wrote: post #64
JoshTheGeek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how copyright would help in this case.

I've created MOOPH module in JavaScript. Purpose of this module is to make it easy to code a pseudomultithreaded application (so it can be seen as API). This module can be used to create various creative content (games, editors, whatever...). However one of possible pseudothreads may include quickly content from external sites to DOM - making a DOS. If multiple users access such project, it could make a DDOS. I hope…

You seem to be missing the meaning of the word API. I sugest you look it out.

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

#79

Post by Natsu »

mooph wrote: post #64
JoshTheGeek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how copyright would help in this case.

I've created MOOPH module in JavaScript. Purpose of this module is to make it easy to code a pseudomultithreaded application (so it can be seen as API). This module can be used to create various creative content (games, editors, whatever...). However one of possible pseudothreads may include quickly content from external sites to DOM - making a DOS. If multiple users access such project, it could make a DDOS. I hope…

If your software is so bad it's harmful to the general public, you don't release it at all, rather than relying on the law to somehow prevent bad people from misusing it.

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

#80

Post by olalonde »

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…

> purpose of a copyright is to protect a specific arrangement of ideas

The purpose of copyright is to encourage innovation and creativity. In a broader sense, the ultimate goal is to benefit society. I think the real question we you should be asking is "will society benefit more from copyrighted APIs or not?". I personally think the answer is that it would be a net negative for society but that's my own opinion.

Post reply on HN