3 ms·

OT: Thinking about API copyright I wonder how that is supposed to work in other programming languages e.g. Golang. Lets assume Google owns the copyright of the

by JepZ 9y ago

OT: Thinking about API copyright I wonder how that is supposed to work in other programming languages e.g. Golang. Lets assume Google owns the copyright of the 'io.Writer' interface for the moment. Is everybody who has implemented a struct with a Writer method which satisfies the 'io.Writer' interface and as oracle stated it 'who wants to use them for a competing platform or to embed them in an electronic device' now (hypothetical) at risk of being prosecuted because they infringe Googles copyright? --- I am well aware that Google was the respondent in the Oracle vs. Google case.

IAmEveryone 9y ago
Short answer: no The law doesn't work as a set of naive rules like "If API->You need a license" because human life is full of nuances that can never be fully captured in a set of rigid rules. I know that people are uncomfortable with this truth, because our systems of courts often appears to the casual observer as just a bunch of "elders" making subjective decisions. Hence "smart contracts" etc. And while the criticism isn't completely wrong, the system as it exists in the US today is actually working quite well, with the professional ethos and rules of the court system being somewhat successful at overriding any individual judge's predilections. Anyway, in your case the difference is obviously one of scope. Even in the original ruling that affirmed APIs to be subject to copyright, the judge ultimately dismissed the case because they considered Google's actions to fall under "fair use". While this was now struck down on appeal, it is absolutely certain that copying a single method's signature would still be protected as fair use. Moreover, in the case you mention, a method such as File.write() would probably not fall under any copyright because there isn't much of any creativity involved.
- JepZ 9y ago
  While I understand your point, your argument has very little foundation. You are basically saying: "Everything works very well and if a judge decides something you should respect that, as he has good reason to judge it his way". One thing I have a particular problem with is that even judges from the same country seem to come to different results on the same case. I know its not unusual but that underlines my point that just because some judge came to some verdict, it isn't necessarily true. And if 'the system as it exists in the US today is actually working quite well', why does a company like Google with a lot of smart people will have to pay a fine which probably will be as valuable as the whole Java platform? In a system that actually works well, the smart people would have seen what was going to happen and different judges would come to the same result. And that something as 'simple' as a single method interface doesn't require any creativity is just wrong. I am sure there are a lot of famous creator quotes about that, the first I was able to find is from Steve Jobs: Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains. [1] In the case of Golang that would translate to: It is much harder to build a universal single method interface for all kinds of write operations opposed to specific write methods for different use-cases. [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/445279-simple-can-be-harder-than-complex-you-have-to-work https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/445279-simple-can-be-harder...
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
There's a difference between using an API and reimplementing one. Nobody's saying that you can get in copyright trouble for using an API. And to my knowledge, Go(lang) doesn't have the "embed in an electronic device" restriction that Java had. If you tried to create a different implementation of Go that used the same API, whether you could get in trouble depends on Google's license. And then, if the license is against you, whether you do get in trouble would be at Google's discretion. Note well: IANAL. Also, I'm still hoping that this "copyrighting the API" will be overturned at the Supreme Court, in which case this whole conversation is moot.

by JepZ 9y ago

IAmEveryone 9y ago

Short answer: no The law doesn't work as a set of naive rules like "If API->You need a license" because human life is full of nuances that can never be fully captured in a set of rigid rules. I know that people are uncomfortable with this truth, because our systems of courts often appears to the casual observer as just a bunch of "elders" making subjective decisions. Hence "smart contracts" etc. And while the criticism isn't completely wrong, the system as it exists in the US today is actually working quite well, with the professional ethos and rules of the court system being somewhat successful at overriding any individual judge's predilections. Anyway, in your case the difference is obviously one of scope. Even in the original ruling that affirmed APIs to be subject to copyright, the judge ultimately dismissed the case because they considered Google's actions to fall under "fair use". While this was now struck down on appeal, it is absolutely certain that copying a single method's signature would still be protected as fair use. Moreover, in the case you mention, a method such as File.write() would probably not fall under any copyright because there isn't much of any creativity involved.

JepZ 9y ago
While I understand your point, your argument has very little foundation. You are basically saying: "Everything works very well and if a judge decides something you should respect that, as he has good reason to judge it his way". One thing I have a particular problem with is that even judges from the same country seem to come to different results on the same case. I know its not unusual but that underlines my point that just because some judge came to some verdict, it isn't necessarily true. And if 'the system as it exists in the US today is actually working quite well', why does a company like Google with a lot of smart people will have to pay a fine which probably will be as valuable as the whole Java platform? In a system that actually works well, the smart people would have seen what was going to happen and different judges would come to the same result. And that something as 'simple' as a single method interface doesn't require any creativity is just wrong. I am sure there are a lot of famous creator quotes about that, the first I was able to find is from Steve Jobs: Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains. [1] In the case of Golang that would translate to: It is much harder to build a universal single method interface for all kinds of write operations opposed to specific write methods for different use-cases. [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/445279-simple-can-be-harder-than-complex-you-have-to-work https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/445279-simple-can-be-harder...

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

There's a difference between using an API and reimplementing one. Nobody's saying that you can get in copyright trouble for using an API. And to my knowledge, Go(lang) doesn't have the "embed in an electronic device" restriction that Java had. If you tried to create a different implementation of Go that used the same API, whether you could get in trouble depends on Google's license. And then, if the license is against you, whether you do get in trouble would be at Google's discretion. Note well: IANAL. Also, I'm still hoping that this "copyrighting the API" will be overturned at the Supreme Court, in which case this whole conversation is moot.