4 ms·

> That's only because the term "API" -- until very recently -- was only used to describe language-level API, while what today is known as a web API has always b

by Oletros 11y ago

> That's only because the term "API" -- until very recently -- was only used to describe language-level API, while what today is known as a web API has always been called a protocol, so don't let the recent overloading of the term confuse you. A protocol is not the same as an API and I don't hink that the, for example, Google Maps interface is a protocol > More to the point, the reason copyright may apply to APIs but certainly not to protocols is because copyright law is not only concerned with the intent, abstraction, or use of the work, but also with its form. This why other IP protections (like patents) exist, to cover works whose form does not match those covered by copyright. But a web API is not a protocol and a communication protocol is not what is used to call Google Maps, beeminder or other web applications. > Yes, but that was the point. Google made some arguments that they believed would make APIs non-copyrightable. The court ruled that those arguments are fair-use arguments which are not relevant to the question of copyrightability, but may be used as a defense once APIs are copyrighted. NO, the appeal ruling had nothing to do with Google arguments about fair use. If there is a new trial to rule about the fair use is because in the original trial, the ruling about fair use was stalled by the jury and Judge Alsup stated that API's can't be copyrighted. And the Appeal court didn't wanted to rule about fair use > Quite the opposite. It is the copyright holder who has to sue you. Yes, but fair use is not automatically granted, so, you're in danger to be sued by the copyright holder. Microsoft can sue WINE developers or Amazon can sue anyone developing a clone of the AWS API.

pron 11y ago
> A protocol is not the same as an API and I don't hink that the, for example, Google Maps interface is a protocol However you want to call it, unlike a "proper" API, it is not of the right form to be copyrighted, regardless of the ruling pertaining to "proper" APIs. > NO, the appeal ruling had nothing to do with Google arguments about fair use. The court didn't rule on fair use, but it did address it. They said that now that it has been clarified that interoperability is not relevant to the copyrightability analysis, it may still play a role in connection with fair use. Namely, that Google interoperability argument isn't an argument against copyright, but rather a fair-use defense, which should be argued separately (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-copyright.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-...). > Yes, but fair use is not automatically granted, so, you're in danger to be sued by the copyright holder That danger had existed even before the court case; the ruling simply did not lift it. Fair use is granted neither automatically nor in court. It is a defense to be used if you are sued.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > However you want to call it, unlike a "proper" API, it is not of the right form to be copyrighted, regardless of the ruling pertaining to "proper" APIs. Still waiting an explanation about web API's not being a proper API. They are not protocols > That danger had existed even before the court case; the ruling simply did not lift it. Fair use is granted neither automatically nor in court. It is a defense to be used if you are sued So anyone is on danger of being sued by a copyright holder of an API.
  - pron 11y ago
    > Still waiting an explanation about web API's not being a proper API. It's not that they're not APIs (you can call anything you want an API -- copyright law doesn't care what it's called), but because they don't have a fixed form. In order to copyright something you need it to be a particular fixed text (or image, or recording). There is no such text for web APIs. You can come up with multiple texts (or images) all describing the exact same API. That is not the case for "plain" APIs. Plain APIs -- like all code -- do have a fixed form. But no fixed form means no copyright. The very beginning of the definition of US copyright says[1]: "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device" (emphasis mine). There are other requirements, but without a fixed form no copyright may apply[2]. The bits of text comprising the names of JSON fields, while fixed, are too short (and lack the necessary structure) to be considered "a work" for copyright purposes. > So anyone is on danger of being sued by a copyright holder of an API. That has always been the case (because it had never been settled that code APIs are not copyrightable). A different ruling may have removed that particular threat, but it didn't. It certainly didn't add new legal threats. But let me give you this advice: If you're a big company with deep pockets and you're coming after the income of another big company with deep pockets using something that may be law-related -- expect to be sued. In fact, I don't need to give you this advice because if you're a big company with deep pockets you probably know this, as you're already in the habit of suing and/or being sued all the time. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 [2]: The law also says: "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", which is the source of Google's argument that copyright doesn't even apply to actual APIs, but that's a whole other discussion, and is far from simple. E.g. a book's table of contents could also be argued to be a procedure or a concept, yet it is certainly copyrighted. Oracle said that an API is like a table of contents. There are good arguments for arguing either way. But again, not having fixed form stops the discussion in its tracks.

by Oletros 11y ago

pron 11y ago

> A protocol is not the same as an API and I don't hink that the, for example, Google Maps interface is a protocol However you want to call it, unlike a "proper" API, it is not of the right form to be copyrighted, regardless of the ruling pertaining to "proper" APIs. > NO, the appeal ruling had nothing to do with Google arguments about fair use. The court didn't rule on fair use, but it did address it. They said that now that it has been clarified that interoperability is not relevant to the copyrightability analysis, it may still play a role in connection with fair use. Namely, that Google interoperability argument isn't an argument against copyright, but rather a fair-use defense, which should be argued separately (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-copyright.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-...). > Yes, but fair use is not automatically granted, so, you're in danger to be sued by the copyright holder That danger had existed even before the court case; the ruling simply did not lift it. Fair use is granted neither automatically nor in court. It is a defense to be used if you are sued.

Oletros 11y ago
> However you want to call it, unlike a "proper" API, it is not of the right form to be copyrighted, regardless of the ruling pertaining to "proper" APIs. Still waiting an explanation about web API's not being a proper API. They are not protocols > That danger had existed even before the court case; the ruling simply did not lift it. Fair use is granted neither automatically nor in court. It is a defense to be used if you are sued So anyone is on danger of being sued by a copyright holder of an API.
- pron 11y ago
  > Still waiting an explanation about web API's not being a proper API. It's not that they're not APIs (you can call anything you want an API -- copyright law doesn't care what it's called), but because they don't have a fixed form. In order to copyright something you need it to be a particular fixed text (or image, or recording). There is no such text for web APIs. You can come up with multiple texts (or images) all describing the exact same API. That is not the case for "plain" APIs. Plain APIs -- like all code -- do have a fixed form. But no fixed form means no copyright. The very beginning of the definition of US copyright says[1]: "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device" (emphasis mine). There are other requirements, but without a fixed form no copyright may apply[2]. The bits of text comprising the names of JSON fields, while fixed, are too short (and lack the necessary structure) to be considered "a work" for copyright purposes. > So anyone is on danger of being sued by a copyright holder of an API. That has always been the case (because it had never been settled that code APIs are not copyrightable). A different ruling may have removed that particular threat, but it didn't. It certainly didn't add new legal threats. But let me give you this advice: If you're a big company with deep pockets and you're coming after the income of another big company with deep pockets using something that may be law-related -- expect to be sued. In fact, I don't need to give you this advice because if you're a big company with deep pockets you probably know this, as you're already in the habit of suing and/or being sued all the time. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 [2]: The law also says: "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", which is the source of Google's argument that copyright doesn't even apply to actual APIs, but that's a whole other discussion, and is far from simple. E.g. a book's table of contents could also be argued to be a procedure or a concept, yet it is certainly copyrighted. Oracle said that an API is like a table of contents. There are good arguments for arguing either way. But again, not having fixed form stops the discussion in its tracks.