6 ms·

So what would actually happen for reals in a copyrighted API universe? If someone wants people to interact with their API (such as a website) they will obviousl

So what would actually happen for reals in a copyrighted API universe? If someone wants people to interact with their API (such as a website) they will obviously license their API in such a way. And if they don't they won't. So, what terrible things would happen? Most programmers agree it'd be terrible. I trust the masses. But for discussion's sake could someone provide a concrete example or two? Somewhat related, I believe ARM's instruction set is protected. Probably by patents? I've always felt that source code should NOT be patentable but SHOULD (and is) be copyrighted. Where an API falls and how to draw that line I'm not sure.

d--b 11y ago
To be clear, what is at stake is not using the API, it is to copy the API. In the case of a website, let's assume that you created ws.com, and that you developed an API that answered 'A' when you call ws.com/A, and 'B' when you call ws.com/B. Then you could sue anyone who'd develop a different website that behaves the same way even though the implementation itself may be completely different.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  I'm not entirely convinced that's unreasonable. Designing a good API is hard. Most interfaces are terrible. If someone wants to clone wordpress then maybe they should just design their own API. If the Wordpress API is that good then maybe it's worth licensing.
  - swozey 11y ago
    By that logic Ford should copyright a cars brake and gas pedal and force other manufacturers to design completely new interface systems to stop and accelerate cars that aren't brake or gas pedals. Sounds great /s. I don't even know where Cloning WordPress came into your thought process. WordPress runs on top of Apache/nginx. That is what responds to ws.com/a. Interoperability is incredibly important, unless you want to go back to having to run a specific Web browser for every other website that isn't using Web standards / rfcs.
    - imayzon 11y ago
      Actually car companies are starting to patent vehicle control interfaces, (for e.g. Teslas patents for Sunroof control interface [1], Audio Control interface [2], etc) If the current craze of IP-as-offensive-weapon were the trend back in the days where basic vehicular controls were being defined, I think we would have seen some similar behavior from car companies - (and in my opinion, their case would be more defensible than Oracle's software API copyright protection). [1] http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140403ptan20140095029.php http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140403ptan20140095029.php [2] http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140403ptan20140096003.php http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140403ptan20140096003.php Edit: typo
    - forrestthewoods 11y ago
      Ford's API could be copyrighted. Sure. Why not? Every car manufacturer has their own software. Why would you even want Ford's version? The braking API isn't "bool braking;". And acceleration isn't "float accel; // [0,1]". Those systems are wildly complex. Ford's copyrighting of their API does nothing to prevent another manufacturing from making their own.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - jclulow 11y ago
    By that logic, the Linux ecosystem should be paying a handsome sum to whatever litigious shadow is left holding the UNIX IP.
    - dragandj 11y ago
      Apparently not, because "GNU is Not Unix", while Google deliberately marketed their language as Java to developers.
      - jclulow 11y ago
        It is extremely disingenuous to suggest that some combination of the Linux kernel and surrounding libraries are not intentionally knocking off at least a large subset of UNIX APIs. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, which is part of what makes the Oracle assault so disgusting.
  - d--b 11y ago
    Clearly some people at Oracle think that way too. They probably paid a lot for 'owning' the Java language and runtime, and only to see that Google just developed their own, and copied the whole API on top of it. So they are probably pissed that their language is slipping away (Java is definitely no longer associated with the Oracle brand). Thing is Oracle got screwed in the first place, they shouldn't have thought they could "buy" the language.
    - groovy2shoes 11y ago
      I don't think Java was ever associated with the Oracle brand. By the time Oracle acquired Sun, Java was already starting to slip away from being associated with Sun! "Java" was only ever qualified when referring to third-party implementations: you never heard "Sun Java", but you'd sometimes hear "IBM Java", etc. "Sun Java" at some point became just "Java". Personally, as a Java developer from 2005-2012, I never associated Java with Oracle. I can't imagine that I'm the only one. Even now, when I need a JRE or JVM, I navigate to http://java.sun.com/ http://java.sun.com/ instead of wherever it is I'm supposed to go.
  - ergothus 11y ago
    Remember why there are govt protections for these things in the first place. Imagine a spectrum - on one side, there are no protections, and people can copy ideas, implementations, etc. For some industries this is no big deal, but for others it would seriously harm the production of new ideas/products, because it remove any financial incentive. Take writers for example: While I think the US copyright terms are stupidly long, I wouldn't want to live in a world where the only books written and published were done so as labors of love. On the other end of the spectrum is a collection of hard, strong rules governing the use of any other ideas. On this end too few new ideas/products are made, because it is in the short-term financial interests of those that have the lock on any market to prevent competition or disruption. We have several industries quite close to this end of the spectrum. The happy place for society is in-between these areas. Lower barriers of entry for potential competitors, so that they can compete. Does this mean that some of these competitors would benefit from the hard work of those that came before? Absolutely! But the alternative is making the barriers to entry too high, so that no competitor can gain traction because they can't be better in all ways and produce an industry interested in compatibility overnight. (Witness Linux and device drivers for a good example) The reason govt offer protections for various areas is NOT to benefit a small number of companies or individuals (in theory) - it's to benefit the whole of society, in the long-term (which should include those companies and individuals, along with future companies and individuals). It's not about protecting that which is _that good_, but about pushing us towards _even better_.
ktRolster 11y ago
There's a fair use defense for interoperability. So despite all the hype, this case is unlikely to have a huge effect on the software industry.
- wnoise 11y ago
  Defaults matter. Having to assert a defense at all is a huge chilling effect.
- farcical_tinpot 11y ago
  There's a fair use defense for interoperability. Which hasn't been defined in this case. So despite all the hype, this case is unlikely to have a huge effect on the software industry. Oracle might try and paint that picture, but I'm afraid it will. There can be no software industry if APIs are subject to copy-write, and if they are, simply using them always comes under fair use. That's why....you use them.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    Your understanding of the law is really weak. Go read this, and keep reading it until you have some understanding of it: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021.opinion.5-7-2014.1.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021... If there are any difficult terms you don't understand, look them up in Google. Build yourself some understanding and you'll say less stupid stuff.
    - farcical_tinpot 11y ago
      Your understanding of the law is really weak. Your understanding of how software works is non-existent, and knee-jerks legal rulings will not change that I'm afraid sweetheart.
groovy2shoes 11y ago
You lost me at "…API (such as a website)"…. How is a website an API? UI I can see, but API? What do you mean by that? In the case of UI, there's a good chance that, to the extent that the piece that is copied constitutes a method of operation, that piece is not copyrightable. For example, in Lotus v. Borland [1], the court ruled that the organization of menus and keyboard macro commands for the sake of compatibility was not copyrightable. However, certain more "artistic" things like icons and such are copyrightable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Development_Corp._v._Borland_International,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Development_Corp._v._Bor....
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  When people preach doom and hellfire over copyrightable APIs they often bring up web requests. If that's a poor example then ok. My question asking for _good_ examples stands firm. As obviously don't have one to say!
  - groovy2shoes 11y ago
    Sorry, I'm not a Web developer so I really don't know what the connection is. I'm not just trying to be obtuse :S
    - askldfhjkasfhd 11y ago
      GP is asking for examples of when copyrighting an API would be a problem. They used web APIs because that's apparently what they are most easily able to call to mind. I've found many programmers think of APIs as ways of interacting with remote systems, usually via http/json/REST. Personally, I think of an API as things like an argument signature in a library, or even hooks in an OS. To me, API literally means a programmatic interface to some code. How you write code to interact with other code. [Not that you said anything differently, I was just trying to expand a little on the different perspectives of 'API' I have encountered.]
      - groovy2shoes 11y ago

d--b 11y ago

To be clear, what is at stake is not using the API, it is to copy the API. In the case of a website, let's assume that you created ws.com, and that you developed an API that answered 'A' when you call ws.com/A, and 'B' when you call ws.com/B. Then you could sue anyone who'd develop a different website that behaves the same way even though the implementation itself may be completely different.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
I'm not entirely convinced that's unreasonable. Designing a good API is hard. Most interfaces are terrible. If someone wants to clone wordpress then maybe they should just design their own API. If the Wordpress API is that good then maybe it's worth licensing.
- swozey 11y ago
  By that logic Ford should copyright a cars brake and gas pedal and force other manufacturers to design completely new interface systems to stop and accelerate cars that aren't brake or gas pedals. Sounds great /s. I don't even know where Cloning WordPress came into your thought process. WordPress runs on top of Apache/nginx. That is what responds to ws.com/a. Interoperability is incredibly important, unless you want to go back to having to run a specific Web browser for every other website that isn't using Web standards / rfcs.
  - imayzon 11y ago
    Actually car companies are starting to patent vehicle control interfaces, (for e.g. Teslas patents for Sunroof control interface [1], Audio Control interface [2], etc) If the current craze of IP-as-offensive-weapon were the trend back in the days where basic vehicular controls were being defined, I think we would have seen some similar behavior from car companies - (and in my opinion, their case would be more defensible than Oracle's software API copyright protection). [1] http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140403ptan20140095029.php http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140403ptan20140095029.php [2] http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140403ptan20140096003.php http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20140403ptan20140096003.php Edit: typo
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    Ford's API could be copyrighted. Sure. Why not? Every car manufacturer has their own software. Why would you even want Ford's version? The braking API isn't "bool braking;". And acceleration isn't "float accel; // [0,1]". Those systems are wildly complex. Ford's copyrighting of their API does nothing to prevent another manufacturing from making their own.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- jclulow 11y ago
  By that logic, the Linux ecosystem should be paying a handsome sum to whatever litigious shadow is left holding the UNIX IP.
  - dragandj 11y ago
    Apparently not, because "GNU is Not Unix", while Google deliberately marketed their language as Java to developers.
    - jclulow 11y ago
      It is extremely disingenuous to suggest that some combination of the Linux kernel and surrounding libraries are not intentionally knocking off at least a large subset of UNIX APIs. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, which is part of what makes the Oracle assault so disgusting.
- d--b 11y ago
  Clearly some people at Oracle think that way too. They probably paid a lot for 'owning' the Java language and runtime, and only to see that Google just developed their own, and copied the whole API on top of it. So they are probably pissed that their language is slipping away (Java is definitely no longer associated with the Oracle brand). Thing is Oracle got screwed in the first place, they shouldn't have thought they could "buy" the language.
  - groovy2shoes 11y ago
    I don't think Java was ever associated with the Oracle brand. By the time Oracle acquired Sun, Java was already starting to slip away from being associated with Sun! "Java" was only ever qualified when referring to third-party implementations: you never heard "Sun Java", but you'd sometimes hear "IBM Java", etc. "Sun Java" at some point became just "Java". Personally, as a Java developer from 2005-2012, I never associated Java with Oracle. I can't imagine that I'm the only one. Even now, when I need a JRE or JVM, I navigate to http://java.sun.com/ http://java.sun.com/ instead of wherever it is I'm supposed to go.
- ergothus 11y ago
  Remember why there are govt protections for these things in the first place. Imagine a spectrum - on one side, there are no protections, and people can copy ideas, implementations, etc. For some industries this is no big deal, but for others it would seriously harm the production of new ideas/products, because it remove any financial incentive. Take writers for example: While I think the US copyright terms are stupidly long, I wouldn't want to live in a world where the only books written and published were done so as labors of love. On the other end of the spectrum is a collection of hard, strong rules governing the use of any other ideas. On this end too few new ideas/products are made, because it is in the short-term financial interests of those that have the lock on any market to prevent competition or disruption. We have several industries quite close to this end of the spectrum. The happy place for society is in-between these areas. Lower barriers of entry for potential competitors, so that they can compete. Does this mean that some of these competitors would benefit from the hard work of those that came before? Absolutely! But the alternative is making the barriers to entry too high, so that no competitor can gain traction because they can't be better in all ways and produce an industry interested in compatibility overnight. (Witness Linux and device drivers for a good example) The reason govt offer protections for various areas is NOT to benefit a small number of companies or individuals (in theory) - it's to benefit the whole of society, in the long-term (which should include those companies and individuals, along with future companies and individuals). It's not about protecting that which is _that good_, but about pushing us towards _even better_.

ktRolster 11y ago

There's a fair use defense for interoperability. So despite all the hype, this case is unlikely to have a huge effect on the software industry.

wnoise 11y ago
Defaults matter. Having to assert a defense at all is a huge chilling effect.
farcical_tinpot 11y ago
There's a fair use defense for interoperability. Which hasn't been defined in this case. So despite all the hype, this case is unlikely to have a huge effect on the software industry. Oracle might try and paint that picture, but I'm afraid it will. There can be no software industry if APIs are subject to copy-write, and if they are, simply using them always comes under fair use. That's why....you use them.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Your understanding of the law is really weak. Go read this, and keep reading it until you have some understanding of it: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021.opinion.5-7-2014.1.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/10/oracle_v_google_13-1021... If there are any difficult terms you don't understand, look them up in Google. Build yourself some understanding and you'll say less stupid stuff.
  - farcical_tinpot 11y ago
    Your understanding of the law is really weak. Your understanding of how software works is non-existent, and knee-jerks legal rulings will not change that I'm afraid sweetheart.

groovy2shoes 11y ago

You lost me at "…API (such as a website)"…. How is a website an API? UI I can see, but API? What do you mean by that? In the case of UI, there's a good chance that, to the extent that the piece that is copied constitutes a method of operation, that piece is not copyrightable. For example, in Lotus v. Borland [1], the court ruled that the organization of menus and keyboard macro commands for the sake of compatibility was not copyrightable. However, certain more "artistic" things like icons and such are copyrightable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Development_Corp._v._Borland_International,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Development_Corp._v._Bor....

forrestthewoods 11y ago
When people preach doom and hellfire over copyrightable APIs they often bring up web requests. If that's a poor example then ok. My question asking for _good_ examples stands firm. As obviously don't have one to say!
- groovy2shoes 11y ago
  Sorry, I'm not a Web developer so I really don't know what the connection is. I'm not just trying to be obtuse :S
  - askldfhjkasfhd 11y ago
    GP is asking for examples of when copyrighting an API would be a problem. They used web APIs because that's apparently what they are most easily able to call to mind. I've found many programmers think of APIs as ways of interacting with remote systems, usually via http/json/REST. Personally, I think of an API as things like an argument signature in a library, or even hooks in an OS. To me, API literally means a programmatic interface to some code. How you write code to interact with other code. [Not that you said anything differently, I was just trying to expand a little on the different perspectives of 'API' I have encountered.]
    - groovy2shoes 11y ago