4 ms·

>Or even to C# since apparently MS got the memo on Open Source Actually Microsoft was with Oracle on the whole 'API's should be copyrightable' and lobbied on t

by gribbly 10y ago

>Or even to C# since apparently MS got the memo on Open Source Actually Microsoft was with Oracle on the whole 'API's should be copyrightable' and lobbied on their behalf during the case. Microsoft claimed that: "If Google's position that APIs can't be copyrighted stands, it will "destabilize" the entire software industry" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/microsoft-foresees-chaos-if-google-v-oracle-result-stands/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/microsoft-forese...

curt15 10y ago
One wonders where they stand now that they've reimplemented the Linux kernel APIs in Windows 10.
- curun1r 10y ago
  Or considering they became such a large company selling a product that targeted IBM compatible systems. In that case, they were a consumer of what was essentially an API, but one wonders whether Microsoft would be in the position it is in today if IBM had been able to prevent Compaq and other vendors from creating clean-room implementations of what was essentially the IBM PC API. IBM would have been in a much better position to push OS/2 and supplant Microsoft's OS offerings if it would have had a monopoly on the PC's supporting it's PC interface.
- WildUtah 10y ago
  Microsoft has a license to the UNIX APIs from AT&T via Cal BSD.
jyrkesh 10y ago
I'd imagine that was a Ballmer-era policy. I would be interested to see if there's anything like that coming out of Nadella's Microsoft (keeping in mind that Nadella's Microsoft hired the guy behind Mono).
userbinator 10y ago
They mean "destablilize" as in "the fat pigs at the top will lose power", which is incidentally what everyone else wants.
tzs 10y ago
It's more subtle than that. The way United States copyright law is structured is that it tends to have simple, broad rules for what is subject to copyright, and then has several exceptions that limit the copyright owner's exclusive rights. The tendency is to put the complexity and special cases in those exceptions and to keep the basic rules for what is subject to copyright simple. Under current law and current Supreme Court precedent, for written works (including computer programs) that standard is essentially that if it is original and it has some creativity it is subject to copyright. The level of required creativity is very low. I believe the Supreme Court used the phrase "modicum of creativity" or something similar. Microsoft's argument was that APIs can qualify under these simple, broad rules as interpreted by current precedent, and so the district court went too far in saying that APIs cannot be subject to copyright. They did not argue that this means that Oracle should be able to prevent Google's copying. They believed that one or more of the exceptions (fair use, the merger doctrine, and some others they mention in their brief) could apply. Their argument on destabilizing the software industry didn't have anything to do with APIs specifically. Essentially it was that the reasons the district court used to exclude the APIs from being copyrightable would likely apply to much more, calling in question a large part of the idea of copyright for computer programs. That would undermine pretty much all software licensing, both proprietary and open source. It's worth reading their brief, as I've done some summarizing and simplifying that probably distorts some of the arguments. The Ars article you cited links to it.

by gribbly 10y ago

curt15 10y ago

One wonders where they stand now that they've reimplemented the Linux kernel APIs in Windows 10.

curun1r 10y ago
Or considering they became such a large company selling a product that targeted IBM compatible systems. In that case, they were a consumer of what was essentially an API, but one wonders whether Microsoft would be in the position it is in today if IBM had been able to prevent Compaq and other vendors from creating clean-room implementations of what was essentially the IBM PC API. IBM would have been in a much better position to push OS/2 and supplant Microsoft's OS offerings if it would have had a monopoly on the PC's supporting it's PC interface.
WildUtah 10y ago
Microsoft has a license to the UNIX APIs from AT&T via Cal BSD.

jyrkesh 10y ago

I'd imagine that was a Ballmer-era policy. I would be interested to see if there's anything like that coming out of Nadella's Microsoft (keeping in mind that Nadella's Microsoft hired the guy behind Mono).

userbinator 10y ago

They mean "destablilize" as in "the fat pigs at the top will lose power", which is incidentally what everyone else wants.

tzs 10y ago

It's more subtle than that. The way United States copyright law is structured is that it tends to have simple, broad rules for what is subject to copyright, and then has several exceptions that limit the copyright owner's exclusive rights. The tendency is to put the complexity and special cases in those exceptions and to keep the basic rules for what is subject to copyright simple. Under current law and current Supreme Court precedent, for written works (including computer programs) that standard is essentially that if it is original and it has some creativity it is subject to copyright. The level of required creativity is very low. I believe the Supreme Court used the phrase "modicum of creativity" or something similar. Microsoft's argument was that APIs can qualify under these simple, broad rules as interpreted by current precedent, and so the district court went too far in saying that APIs cannot be subject to copyright. They did not argue that this means that Oracle should be able to prevent Google's copying. They believed that one or more of the exceptions (fair use, the merger doctrine, and some others they mention in their brief) could apply. Their argument on destabilizing the software industry didn't have anything to do with APIs specifically. Essentially it was that the reasons the district court used to exclude the APIs from being copyrightable would likely apply to much more, calling in question a large part of the idea of copyright for computer programs. That would undermine pretty much all software licensing, both proprietary and open source. It's worth reading their brief, as I've done some summarizing and simplifying that probably distorts some of the arguments. The Ars article you cited links to it.