Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable (techdirt.com) 173
"This case concerns the copyrightability of computer code. To induce a computer to perform a function, a person must give the computer written instructions. Typically, those instructions are written in 'source code,' which consists of words, numbers, and symbols in a particular 'programming language,' which has its own syntax and semantics. The source code is then converted into binary 'object code' -- ones and zeros -- that is readable by the computer.
It is both 'firmly established' and undisputed in this case that computer code can be copyrightable as a 'literary work[].' 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright & 2A.10[B] (2019). Section 101 defines a 'computer program' as 'a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.' 17 U.S.C. 101. And various Copyright Act provisions recognize that a person may own a copyright in a 'computer program.'"
Masnick adds: Except... that's not what this case is about. Even remotely. Literally no one denies that software source code is subject to copyright. The question is whether or not an Application Programming Interface -- an API -- is subject to copyright.
Implications of API copyright (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't x86 the perfect example of an API being copyright protected and broadly recognized?
There should be an entirely different court system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There should be an entirely different court sys (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No judges just Gurus
Instead of lawyers hackers
Instead of defendants: users
Re: (Score:2)
You missed such an awesome chance to call it FATwahs.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely we can do something with the SHA family of algorithms ...
Re: (Score:2)
Let's check the SHAmanual.
Re: (Score:2)
It is funny that if you use this kind of vague nonsense in the law, judges and lawyers will tear you apart.
But if you insist on precise wording for technology, judges and lawyers don't give a shit or accuse you of being pedantic.
Re:There should be an entirely different court sys (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is you run into people making calls when getting overly pedantic and technical as well. For instance, it was people who do understand technical issues who came up with the concept that using a GPL library could cause the code that calls it to be a derivative because the two would technically mix in memory. Of course that led to everyone switching to licenses which avoided the issue because nobody intended that in the first place. Logically the libraries and main code body are distinct and modular and independent whether they technically blend at run time or not. Technical understanding and practical common reason often don't go together.
Re:There should be an entirely different court sys (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course that led to everyone switching to licenses which avoided the issue because nobody intended that in the first place
Of course it was intended, the very purpose of the GPL was to prevent public GPL'd code from being used in closed source applications.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that the main purpose was to ensure that all future improvements to the GPLed code would be open and available to future users, and that nothing would prevent users from exercising their rights to make improvements to that code. That said, for some folks with particularly strong opinions, what you're talking about might have been a secondary goal. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read a bit of Stallman, you very quickly learn that he considers any and all closed source software immoral. Not inconvenient, annoying or unfortunate, but actually immoral.
The GPL is absolutely designed to require that anything that uses GPLed code be itself open source, very preferably GPL. It's not called viral for nothing.
The LGPL is a compromise along the lines you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even the main purpose of free software, much less open source (which is the term used to describe software that DOES allow proprietary integration).
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was correct; the exact purpose of choosing open source is that I can do with it what I want, and if it wants to do something different, I can change it.
I rarely change the software I use. But the ability to is very important. Otherwise I don't trust it, and I don't want to invest time learning it.
If I know I can make changes, I know I can choose to keep using it. And if I need a feature, I know I can have it.
and jury duty that pays at least $200/day (Score:5, Insightful)
and jury duty that pays at least $200/day
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that is what got the patent system in so much trouble. By creating an appeal court dedicated to patent lawsuits, the court proceeded to expand its jurisdiction to (almost) everything and make (almost) everything patentable. Hence, we got software patents even though the law pretty clearly said software wasn't patentable.
This expansion of jurisdiction made lots of money for patent lawyers, judges, and all inv
Re: (Score:2)
for software and techy issues. The current system's judges, lawyers, etc. are mostly incapable of understanding even half of the laws surrounding the stuff.
I suppose you think the congress critters that wrote the laws understood what they were voting on when they passed it.
Re: (Score:2)
They definitely don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
If they actually understood what an API is there would be no debate. The best way to explain to someone without getting technical is a physical representation. It's like claiming their IP prevents you from measuring the dimensions of a car part so that you can produce your own part that would fit in a given model or from measuring the thread and pattern of screws on a projector so that you can produce a non-oem mounting bracket that will fit it.
That is basically what this comes down to, completely standard components pieced together in unique patterns which need to replicated to produce non-oem inter-operable parts. There is nothing creative or expressive about them, they are purely functional.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. TFSH also doesn't understand. They are comparing to source code and source code is not executable either.
Re: (Score:2)
Source code is theoretically executable. You couldn't build a machine that runs APIs.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like copyrighting page numbers.
and API is just an index for code.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, sort of. This (Java clone) is like building an entire car based around the measurements of a few crucial OEM parts to allow those to fit in the resulting car.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet for some cars it is possible to buy every single part out there, either NOS OEM stuff or quality repros. Take the VW Bug for instance - no, not that "new" thing but the classic air cooled rear engined beast. You can order all the parts build one from scratch, either NOS/OEM or repro. The only thing stopping you from making a completely new 197x Bug is that you can't get a VIN plate for one... but if you can find one from a rusted hulk in a field or a junk yard or feel ballsy enough and try to sta
Re: (Score:2)
In a lot of states that "new 197x Bug" is just a "custom car," and as long as you write down "custom" on the title application you do indeed get to make your own VIN plate. But if you take the extra effort to find a rusty old heap with a clean title, using the VIN plate from that will get you cheaper insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
No car from the 80s is still on the road... bumper standards have changed.
Plenty of cars from the 80s and prior are still on the road. They're grandfathered in. In this state, you can even get a special permanent license plate that you don't have to pay to renew as long as you meet the requirements of a collector car. That license plate makes it legal to drive the vehicle on public roads, even though it was built in the 60s and has almost no modern safety features at all, including seatbelts.
Re: (Score:2)
I posted a longer response above. The correct answer is "digital form". That is not an analogy. APIs are a precise description of the form that you (the code/programmer) must fill in if you want a function to perform a task for you. The ABI is the binary description of what the machine must actually do to fill in that form and call the function.
Car analogy ahead (Score:2)
Your car's owner's manual is the same as driving a car.
Re:Car analogy ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
An owner's manual describes the car's interface. The lights, the controls, etc.
A mechanical specification is bordering closer to patent and copyright in detail, at least as far as this analogy goes. If you remember the iPod connector, it was set up so that Apple could collect a fee for every accessory made for it. Car makers could legally put some funky lug pattern on their wheels and demand that manufacturers pay them a fee for the privileged for making hubs. They don't do it because it would be stupid, bu
Re: Car analogy ahead (Score:2)
Car makers could legally put some funky lug pattern on their wheels and demand that manufacturers pay them a fee for the privileged for making hubs. They don't do it because it would be stupid, but I believe they legally can.
Not quite; patents have certain requitements that wouldn't be met in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
They would have some useful novelty, correct?
Companies do make things and then crawl over it for novelty to patent. So they're as close as they're legally permitted.
In the case of a funky lug pattern they could probably invent a better way to fasten wheels to a car in order to fuck people over but people would start specifically avoiding their cars because they can't jazz it up with all the best rims. There would be conversion kits, so you'd get known for making cars that can be nice if you unfuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
I would still argue that an API is closest to the mechanical specification. If it is sufficiently inventive, it could be patented, which is not a problem for this case as patents cannot be applied for in retrospect, and I doubt there is anything inventive in the API anyway. If you want to convince the court that an API should not be covered by copyright, you are probably going to have an easier job if you convince them it could potentially be covered by patent protection than trying to convince them that
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really analogous, either, as those are just numbers and data. It would be more like saying you had devised a certain way for people to sit, reach buttons, activate things, and read the dashboard which a large number of people found particularly useful. And you'd put a lot of effort into making it simple. And expressed it in a form that is typically protected in a certain way. But then the entire geek community says you shouldn't be able to use that way to protect yourself because, apparently, the
Re: (Score:2)
Except facts and figures aren't copyrightable. How those facts and figures are arranged or presented or distributed can be copyrighted, but not the actual data/info.
A mechanical design can be patented too, so while you can describe the part making the part or assembly or things around it may get you in patent trouble.
Design Rights (Score:2)
A better car analogy would be mechanical specs and dimensions (e.g. wheel hub sizes) are copyrighted, so nobody could ever manufacture third-party non-OEM parts for it.
there is something called "Design Rights" which applies to physical designs. it's basically Copyright... for physical designs.
extending this analogy - correctly and in terms that a lawyer could understand - would be to extend DESIGN Rights to prevent third party non-OEM wheels from being allowed to be attached to a car that had been Registered with Design Right.
Seriously excellent (Score:2)
That sounds like he has shot his own case down. Convince the court that APIs are not executable code, and his primary argument is dead.
Copyright != Patent (Score:4, Interesting)
If they copyrighted their API, you can still implement it, you just need different names. For example, if you had a copyrighted API called ReadTable( ), I could implement the exact same interface and functionality with an API called TableRead( ) without issue. You can implement the same functionality, just with different names. Much like the same story (or even song - for example, Spirit's Taurus vs. Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven. Same chord progressions and pacing - but ruled different songs that did not violate copyright.
If their API was patented however, then ANY implementation of its functionality would be prohibited. You couldn't do the rename at all. If you did the same function, you would be in violation. But that's not the case with copyright...
Re: (Score:3)
I could implement the exact same interface and functionality with an API called TableRead( ) without issue.
There WOULD be issue, because end users' code that needs to be compiled against your implementation would contain calls to ReadTable().
Sure... you could define your TableRead function, and I could call my implementation of System.out.println(String x) as System.out.Myprintln(MyString x)
But then when an End user wishes to compile their program, they won't be able to use my implementation of
Re: (Score:3)
Except you've got a major problem with your argument: ReadTable() is a name, and you cannot copyright names. You can trademark names, but only for branding purposes, and they cannot be simple descriptions of the thing itself, which ReadTable would definitely be (e.g. this is why "Word" cannot be trademarked for a word processor, but "Microsoft Word" can be).
You've got another problem with your claim that patenting it would give you protection: Patents only cover new inventions - Java is a programming langua
Re: (Score:2)
Other problem with Java's patents... this has been out for 14 years or more so time is up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, the main problem with medical databases is that there's only five good names for what to call most things in the database, so thinking up a sixth database is nearly impossible without tripping over one of the terms used by the existing five. MEDITECH seems to falter towards bankruptcy at times, but it's always rescued by its four competitors because the bankruptcy auction would almost certainly award the data structure to open source efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, The Verve Pipe lost out on "Bittersweet Symphony" for being to close to "You Cant Always Get What You Want" by the Rolling Stones. This was before DMCA was passed.
"Gaslighting" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm getting tired of this new fad where people use the word "gaslighting" as a pretentious way of saying "lying", as if lying isn't negative enough.
A person is only "gaslighted" when they're not consciously aware that they're being fucked with. Only people with weak minds can be "gaslighted", which is probably why the fad of using it as jargon started in social justice circles.
We all know perfectly well that Oracle and the Trump administration are both completely full of shit, so in no sense of the word are we being "gaslighted".
Re: (Score:2)
A person is only "gaslighted" when they're not consciously aware that they're being fucked with.
It's the judges who are being gaslit, not us. We don't matter. They do.
An 80-year-old judge appointed by Reagan -- or a 25-year-old one appointed by Trump right after graduation from Liberty University -- does not possess the intellectual faculties needed to understand when they are being fucked with. That's what Oracle is counting on.
That is exactly wrong (Score:5, Funny)
An 80-year-old judge appointed by Reagan -- or a 25-year-old one appointed by Trump right after graduation from Liberty University -- does not possess the intellectual faculties needed to understand when they are being fucked with.
Thanks to some acquaintances I have met and talked with a few federal Judges in person, some a number of times.
I assure you they are in no way unable to understand when they are being fucked with.
In fact I will go so far as to say, the absolute #`1 instinct every judge has keenly developed far beyond mere mortals, is the power to know when they are being fucked with, regardless of the subject.
If they don't understand something they will drill and drill and drill until they know what you know, and more importantly what you do not know. If you have been trying to mislead them you are screwed.
Don't forget their job is essentially full time dealing with lawyers, who are CONSTANTLY trying to get things past judges, Do you not understand how living in that world would develop an attunement to fuckery beyond your comprehension?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The easiest people to gaslighted are the ones who think 'only weak minds can be gaslighted'. The actual technique has nothing to do with strength, weakness or intelligence any more than optical illusions or anything else that leverages the way brains work.
Exactly this. Get someone to agree with a small lie and the backfire effect will cause them to double down and defend the lie to protect their self-image as someone who can't be fooled.
Re: (Score:2)
Except no. Good job that you read a trending article [deadspin.com]. But that is exactly what they are attempting to do.
A person is only "gaslighted" when they're not consciously aware that they're being fucked with.
If they're consciously aware of this, Oracle won't win. If it works, you can't say they're aware. Either way, the key word is attempting.
SCO Reloaded (Score:5, Insightful)
Really has the feel of the whole SCO mess.
Re: (Score:2)
SCO had nothing to do with Linux, but tried to claim a patent bought from AIX gave them control of all forms of UNIX. Their lawsuit threats brought them settlements from datacenters like Ev1Servers, but after that cash was spent on lawyers, SCO went bankrupt.
Oracle RDMS is too close to Microsoft's SQL Server offerings.. they both use the same SQL queries and commands,
MySQL started as open source, but merged with Oracle. They're the "free sample" version of Oracle which is limited to tables with 1,000,000 re
Compaq vs IBM? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If BIOS isn't good case law for an API, I don't know what else would work.
Restaurant analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is better than a car analogy. If executable code is a cookbook, an API is a restaurant menu. And not the full menu either; just a list of items. The API documentation contains details on what the items are and how to order them - and that can by copyrighted.
Re: (Score:2)
But then don't forget that someone else can come along and independently write instructions on how to place an order and that's got its own copyright, and is not considered infringing on the other copyright. The cookbook analogy works much better to illustrate this.
Wistful (Score:3)
Buy Oracle (Score:2)
Oracle's market cap is only around $180e9 whereas Alphabet is around $846e9. They could simply buy Oracle and scuttle the appeal for precedence sake. The only downside for Alphabet is that they will lose a few billion for running a failing purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Market Cap != Available Cash... Google/Alphabet doesn't have enough cash to by Oracle right now. It needs another $70B [marketwatch.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
A Google-owned RDBMS would not be tolerated by most customers... GOOG is an advertising-based company, it gets little from subscriber revenue. If Google had the backdoor into the databases in the world, shareholders might insist it be sold to data-miner companies like Facebook sold its database to Cambridge Analytics... then again, CA never was able to make a product that anyone would buy out of that.
On the other hand? (Score:4, Interesting)
I still hate Oracle with a passion but if I have to try to be impartial: I may be changing my opinion a bit on the subject. At least I doubt if it is tenable to say that "API's are not governed by any kind of copyright-like protection". Yes, I can see the "programmer perspective": Interfaces are meant to be implemented... am I also breaking copyright when implementing an Iterator? Etc. However, this may be too simplified. There's a difference between implementing select interfaces/API's meant for implementation (as part of the whole idea of publishing the API) and doing a full re-implementation of the whole applicationJVM boundary including classes that are always provided by the JVM and not meant to be re-implemented as kind of any use of a JVM - and this with the goal of creating a competing JVM implementation. Even if you are not copying a single line of code, you are copying all the ideas behind it and the method signatures. Often, defining and designing the "right API" is a bigger task than actually implementing it. You could even view it such that practically ALL significant code-related work in developing an application is defining the (internal) API's, and the rest is just routine coding tasks.
Is this work (whole API architecture of a JVM) not worthy of any copyright protection at all? Of course if you are against all kinds of copyright, the answer will be "No". But we live in a world where copyright is a thing. Given that, why are API's unworthy of protection?
Re: (Score:2)
am I also breaking copyright when implementing an Iterator?
You hit the nail on the head with this and didn't catch it. If it's all about the *how*, then it's eligible for patent protection that has probably expired by now. If the how is obvious, then no patent protection applies. Parallel construction is not copyrightable. See the clean room design that brought us the Compaq IBM-compatible PC. Already tested in court, too.
You could even view it such that practically ALL significant code-related work in developing an application is defining the (internal) API's, and the rest is just routine coding tasks.
You're right - that's hard. And if you come up with a truly novel concept here, that's where software patents should exist. If it's just a
Re:On the other hand? (Score:4, Interesting)
APIs are digital forms. I've designed forms. They are hard to make. You send a lot of time thinking about how to ask the information in a simple way without duplication or ambiguity. When starting a new enterprise, designing the forms might be the critical component to understanding the revolutionary business model, and getting customers to understand and use it. Some forms are so bad there are whole businesses out there to help you fill them in.
Forms are explicitly not copyrightable under US law. Doesn't seem fair, but it's been declared legal for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Forms are explicitly not copyrightable under US law. Doesn't seem fair, but it's been declared legal for a very long time.
Where are you getting that idea? Government forms are not copyrighted, but NoLo and Legalzoom make a business of selling forms and helping you figure out how to fill them out.
Columbia Data Products ... (Score:2)
So, if an API is subject to copyright (and Oracle wins) then it follows that the entire PC industry is "in violation" since it only exists because IBMs BIOS API was "cloned". Clearly an API specification cannot be subject to copyright as that interpretation of copyright law cannot be maintained, unless one can point to the specific change in the law that occured between then and now which changed the legal status of the application of copyright to an API.
chmod +x ./* (Score:2)
what would you rather read (Score:2)
Who's deciding what here? (Score:2)
In the end, this case is basically a set of people ten times removed from an actual programmer arguing a case they themselves understand nothing about. The lawyers, the judges, hell, even the expert witnesses (which have been PhD's and PHB's) have no idea what actual coding is all about.
Moreover the line between an API and a piece of code is very thin. API's are simply descriptions of the underlying source code and typically very simple to implement. Is the API copyrightable: yes, the API is documentation a
Be interesting if they get their way. Lawyers? (Score:2)
If this happens then what's to stop companies from writing API's in order to sue anyone who uses them?
Anything that's not yet often automated; You can go and get a subject matter expert and talk to them and make an api and wait for fuckers to sue?
Please tell me I'm being naive.
Hopefully it doesn't matter since modularity is an advertised feature of java so you can swap out whatever you want. Software has long been made that plugged into another product in a way the manufacturer disapproves of. Can any o
Unauthorized emulators (Score:2)
Companies that dislike emulators being made of their devices (e.g. Nintendo) never managed to argue this with respect to the software interface presented by a device (as distinct from the BIOS code & such), so why should a software interface presented by software be any different?
In Nintendo's case, I seem to remember they also tried to use mandatory inclusion of the Nintendo logo to keep people from even using their interface without their permission, which then failed in court. Which is different from
Different kind of APIs (Score:2)
Docs are clearlly copyrighted. (Score:2)
It's almost impossible to use an API without the docs defining it. That's either a PDF or CHM file which is definitely a copyrightable piece of work. Data obtained by an API is copyrightable, just like a HTML response to a URL is. These things can be licensed to agree that they won't be reverse engineered... what is in despite here?
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, Vanna, can I trade in the "I" in despite for a "U"?
Re:Describe it as a recipe (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems obvious that your recipe can be copyrighted. And, indeed, those in printed cookbooks are copyrighted.
Not to be that picky guy on the internet but you can't actually copyright a recipe though you can copyright a cookbook, or an article about preparing the recipe
https://sarafhawkins.com/recip... [sarafhawkins.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Tomahawk argued:
A function is like a recipe.
The variable declarations are like the ingredients.
The method is like the actually instructions in the recipe.
The recipe is called "Lemon Drizzle Cake".
It seems obvious that your recipe can be copyrighted. And, indeed, those in printed cookbooks are copyrighted.
However, that doesn't prevent me from coming up with my own recipe for lemon drizzle cake. The ingredients and method will differ, and the result will be also different but similar.
Same follows for an API. How is implemented is copyrightable, but the name isn't.
Brzzt. Sorry, you're incorrect. Thanks for playing, though, and here's a lovely set of Lee Press-On Nails [youtube.com] as your parting gift.
Actually, you're 100% free to use the exact same ingredients in your Lemon Drizzle Cake recipe. However, according to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Tomaydo-Tomahhdo, LLC v. George Vozary [uscourts.gov], what you CANNOT do is to copy the instructions for how to combine and process those ingredients - specifically including both the amounts of the individual ingredi
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, did you just taste Lemon Drizzle Cake before you made it? If you saw the recipe you're not allowed to steal it... but if you didn't you could invite the experts over to reverse engineer the proper amounts of lemon, sugar, and the other ingredients.
Re:Google Will Lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Really I am not aware of even Oracle accusing Google of copying anything from Java. Granted Google cloned every single damned thing from Java; but copied nothing!
That is really important distinction because it would indeed be a catastrophe for the industry if it turns out you can't clone stuff. Goodbye Linux, unless current UNIX owners feel like being generous. Goodbye Wine. Whoever has rights to DR DOS right now probably STILL has claims against current Windows interfaces and vice versa. Can you read someone elses binary file format? You are cloning their parser after all... This would be a mess!
Re: (Score:2)
Can you read someone elses binary file format? You are cloning their parser after all...
MS definitely tried this with FAT32.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft had patents on FAT32. They never tried anything with copyright law regarding FAT32.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop trolling. Google didn't copy any code (except for a few lines that was just a misunderstanding). That's already an agreed upon fact in the trial record. Oracle's brilliant lawyers (I'm not being sarcastic) pulled a complete rabbit-out-a-hat-trick to salvage what was originally a patent lawsuit that turned out to be a complete nothing-burger, by inventing the notion that APIs are copyrightable, when they have never been treated as such by anyone. And Google might lose. And it will be a catastrophe,
OMG Will Google LOSE? (Score:2)
Tits.
An API is just like an instruction set. We're allowed to clone CPUs. The ability to swap out components with identical APIs is an advertised feature of java.
Oracle will have a history of not enforcing copyrights on their JVM(processor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]) and their API(3rd party replacement modules)
Google has a 3rd party JVM with 3rd party replacement modules.
I am not a lawyer this is just what I think. If anyone thinks they know better then like my posts and leave a message in the co
Re: (Score:2)
Not what the filing is about. Summary is crap (Score:3, Informative)
The very next sentence after the one quoted is:
--
Respondentâ(TM)s predecessor-in-interest created
the Java programming language. It then developed a
variety of tools and softwareâ"known collectively as the
âoeJava platformââ"to assist programmers in writing and
distributing computer programs in Java
--
Mentioning these facts doesn't in any way mean that's the argument they are making. They are simply starting out by giving some context. If anyone wants to know what the arguments actuall
Re: (Score:2)
Even if one side has good legal arguments, there's still always a chance that the judge gets it w
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the US, it isn't quite as simple as distinguishing what the law is from what the law should be, though, because some significant definitions in terms of what is subject to copyright are not set out in statute in the first place. It would be interesting to see how arguments along the lines presented in Eltra Corp v. Ringer (the case that demonstrated that typeface designs were not copyrightable in the US) could be applied here.
Re:Not what the filing is about. Summary is crap (Score:5, Informative)
Google have consistently had poor legal representation in this case. Particularly, they've never managed to actually detail what an API is, and why it isn't software.
APIs are digital forms. Software fills one in and gives it to a worker, it does what is asked (possibly with side effects) and returns results. This is not an analogy, it is a fact (if you understand computers). Paper forms are not copyrightable, for good reason - because there's often only one logical way to make the form.
Google copied Java's API, the same as businesses have been copying each others forms since the dawn of time, and for the same reason: it's easier to present a known interface to customers. Even if some people don't think it is fair, it has consistently been ruled as legal.
I've followed the trial very closely, and I read every line of the court transcripts of the original trial, although not every exhibit or submittal. They did not make this argument. They also did not make it on appeal, as far as I know. Instead they agreed to the Court's analogy: "Oracle's collection of API packages is like a library, each package is like a bookshelf in the library, each class is like a book on the shelf, and each method is like a how-to chapter in a book." This is not like an API at all. If you want to give a form based analogy for the sequence and organization of the API, then it like saying "Here's a list of DMV forms, here are some IRS forms. Here are banking ones - these one are for check accounts, these are for credit cards, etc."
After reading all the decisions, I think the ruling by the Federal Circuit that lead to this appeal is logical and well argued. But the country should not be punished because Google didn't provide the district court with a good argument. Rather than a general appeal that copyrighting APIs would be a bad idea, making the link between APIs and forms provides a solid legal foundation for rejecting the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
... to actually detail what an API is, and why it isn't software.
How hard is it really? The key part of an API is the _I_. I've read lots of books over my career that describe what an API is, with metaphors galore. One metaphor that stands out is one about the Skylab docking ring that mated – or interfaced – to the Soyuz capsule.
APIs define how applications mate to the library, the kernel, or the JVM. The most common way they do that, as I'm sure you know, is with header files.
IMO those header files certainly are software. They're instructions to the
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, to a point.
One place I differentiate is that it is possible to have a standard, such that you need to pay money in order to use such standard. There are many such examples, so many in fact, that I would argue that a pay-to-use standard is more common then a free-to-use standard.
Re: (Score:3)
Forms aren't copyrightable because they're just ideas. The filled out forms are copyrightable because they now do contain your expression, however neither form type does anything actionable (there is no inherent executive action by filling out the form)
In this analogy, the question is whether the API is a form or a filled out form. If Google had taken the API eg. Readfile and Writefile and then implemented a random 'read file' function and a 'write file' function, that would be one thing. But the API says '
Re: (Score:2)
"forms since the dawn of time, and for the same reason: it's easier"
As allowed by the It's Easier Act of 1978?
Certainly it is fact easier to copy somebody else's work.
That doesn't give you a legal right to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a bit of a complex problem to describe to lay-persons. Source code can be copyrighted, but there's a single thin layer of source code which defines the interface between libraries and application code. If you want to write a language-source-compatible system, that boundary definition has to be copied exactly. But nothing beyond that boundary, inside the original library itself, can be legally copied. This sort of "copying" has a very long history with both hardware and software, known as a "clean r
Re: (Score:3)
I think part of the complication is whether or not you consider an API a work subject to copyright, or just a set of technical specifications for a library interface. Let's say GMC creates parts blueprints for their cars and copyrights them. Is someone else prohibited from creating duplicate blueprints derived from the actual physical parts? Because they're naturally going to end up very similar-looking. If you've created that blueprint yourself, is it a violation of the copyright on the original bluepr
Re: (Score:3)
Try selling cars that exactly match GMs blueprints down to the finest detail and let me know how many minutes it takes before you're in federal court.
Modulo some particular patents which may not have expired yet, this is perfectly legal as long as you omit one fine detail: GM's trademarked logos for themselves and for the vehicle model. This has already been litigated, and it's why you can get a clone of nearly every GM part from a company that isn't GM or GM licensed.
The courts ruled that vehicle components are substantially functional and therefore not copyrightable. Copyright eligibility requires a creative, as in artistic, component. Elements that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No sir, this doesn't have any windows at all. Only lots of small, creatively placed doors.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can provide instructions that can be carried out to execute the alleged code then it's code.
We already know that written instructions can be copyrighted - independently of whether they're code.
The point still stands. An API is just a socket to plug into. (But different from the socket your razor blade plugs into on the handle, because those are usually patented for some silly excuse or another).
Re: (Score:2)
Except for aesthetic designs, design cannot be copyrighted. They can be patented. If your design is novel, great - get a patent. If not, just know that anyone can do it and you're not special.
API is stored with the code and written in a similar language. That does not make it code.