Let Oracle own API's, Justice Dept tells top court in surprise filing

Post by bediger4000 » Wed, May 27, 2015, 1:44 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #35

caf wrote: post #21

Is the logical extension of this that anyone who's written a standard C library was in violation of Kernighan & Ritchie's copyright?

That's not quite as interesting a comparison as you might think [ed: or maybe it is, now that I've thought it through... ;-) ]. Eg, from the Introduction to the second edition of "The C Programming Language": "Appendix A contains a language reference manual. The official statement of the syntax and semantics of C is the ANSI Standard itself.". Note that there's an ANSI standard for C -- and while I don't know what ki…

Post by ChairmanZach » Wed, May 27, 2015, 1:51 PM UTC

mc808 wrote: post #58

ChairmanZach wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet Google claims that the implementing code should be protected by copyright. How is "return a > b ? a : b;" not a method of operation if "public static int Max(int a, int b)" is... If the implementation, CODE(!), is of course a formalized description of methods of operation, the declaring code (or API) is providing a means of access to it. Something that takes quite a bit of thought and creativity to do well.

Neither one of those is substantial enough for copyright. They should be considered in the context of a whole body of work. Using books as an analogy, an API most closely resembles chapters and headings. Is it copyright infringement to write a new book that follows the same outline as a previous book? (I don't know...)

Post by Oletros » Wed, May 27, 2015, 1:55 PM UTC

ChairmanZach wrote: post #70

Oletros wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should it be legal for me to copy all of the declaring code of my employers product and after writing my own implementation selling it as my own product/work under a different name? How do you think compatible API implementations have been done until now?

If they are done by copying someone elses work without permission then by copyright infringement. If done by implementing a standard or through a license etc. then no harm is done. Do you think that I should be allowed to steal the declaring code of someone elses proprietary solution and pawn of as my own?

Post by throwawaykf05 » Wed, May 27, 2015, 1:57 PM UTC

bediger4000 wrote: post #66

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All code is a formalized description of "methods of operation". Unless you believe software achieves practical results without the benefit of hardware. And that's assuming you write pure assembly, else you also have firmware, operating systems, drivers, libraries, runtimes, or whatever supporting infrastructure is needed for your code to do anything meaningful.

I agree that all code is a formalized description of "methods of operation", unless the legal phrase "methods of operation" has some exotic, inobvious meaning, like "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" has taken on. That's why the US shouldn't allow software patents. Software is either mathematical or a formalized description of a method of operation.

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 27, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

markvdb wrote: post #14

badlogic wrote: post #4

This advise by the Solicitor General hinges on an interpretation of section 102(b) of the copyright act. That section essentially says that "methods of operation" can't be copyrighted. The Solicitor General does not understand that APIs are a formalized description of "methods of operation" (page 14). I suggest reading the entire advisory, it's quite frustrating and contradicts itself.

I agree that one shouldn't ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence. ("The Solicitor General does not understand...") BUT! At the White House level, incompetence equals malice. We have every right to expect competence from a level as high as the White House.