10 ms·

> reverse engineering That is certainly an issue if you reverse engineer anything. Google went out of their way to NOT reverse engineer it. The issue is can a

> reverse engineering That is certainly an issue if you reverse engineer anything. Google went out of their way to NOT reverse engineer it. The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue.

wolfgke 9y ago
> The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue. In Roman Law there is the principle "In dubio pro reo" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo), which means that if there are doubts whether the culprit is guilty or not, he/she may not be convicted.
- yoklov 9y ago
  I feel like this probably is intended to apply in criminal cases and not civil. (And a copyright case like this would certainly be civil, and not criminal) In the US, it at least seems that something similar does, in so far as we require a unanimous vote by the jury to convict someone in a criminal trial, but a simple majority for a civil.
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st...
treis 9y ago
I don't get why it's a scary issue or even controversial why an API would be subject copyright. An API, in my mind, is similar to design drawings or blueprints. Independently figuring out how to implement those drawings doesn't change the fact that you copied the design.
- alex_young 9y ago
  If you apply this view to all APIs, the computer revolution would never have happened. The PC was a clone of IBMs API. They fought this battle and lost and now we can argue about it on little handheld clones all day long.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    In fact, IBM was so sure that the BIOS API could not be copyrighted they basically made their source public (in the manuals but NOT open source) so anyone reading the manuals to understand the BIOS was tainted and couldn't write a competitor. Compaq did a clean room setup to get around this.
    - hcknwscommenter 9y ago
      >IBM was so sure that the BIOS API could not be copyrighted they basically made their source public That is not how copyright works. You almost got it right with your comment "anyone reading the manuals to understand the BIOS was tainted and couldn't write a competitor." Copyright protects against copying. It does not protect against independent development. Hence the clean room set up.
      - protomyth 9y ago
        If the BIOS API was copyrightable, they would have had to do nothing and simply declare that they owned the copyright to the API and thus no clones. Since they couldn't do that, they had to go to the extra step.
        hcknwscommenter 9y ago
        That is simply incorrect. Copyright covers copying. It does not cover independent re-implementation. That is the point of clean-room re-implementation. It is not copying because--> clean room. Silly Example: you design a phone book containing all the names and phone numbers of everyone in the city. To the extent that any subjective decisions were made in the design, it is a copyrighted work. I design a phone book. If I copy yours, it is a violation of your copyright. If I collate the underlying information and then make my own phone book it is not copying, even if it looks exactly the same.

wolfgke 9y ago

> The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue. In Roman Law there is the principle "In dubio pro reo" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_dubio_pro_reo), which means that if there are doubts whether the culprit is guilty or not, he/she may not be convicted.

yoklov 9y ago
I feel like this probably is intended to apply in criminal cases and not civil. (And a copyright case like this would certainly be civil, and not criminal) In the US, it at least seems that something similar does, in so far as we require a unanimous vote by the jury to convict someone in a criminal trial, but a simple majority for a civil.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st...

treis 9y ago

I don't get why it's a scary issue or even controversial why an API would be subject copyright. An API, in my mind, is similar to design drawings or blueprints. Independently figuring out how to implement those drawings doesn't change the fact that you copied the design.

alex_young 9y ago
If you apply this view to all APIs, the computer revolution would never have happened. The PC was a clone of IBMs API. They fought this battle and lost and now we can argue about it on little handheld clones all day long.
- protomyth 9y ago
  In fact, IBM was so sure that the BIOS API could not be copyrighted they basically made their source public (in the manuals but NOT open source) so anyone reading the manuals to understand the BIOS was tainted and couldn't write a competitor. Compaq did a clean room setup to get around this.
  - hcknwscommenter 9y ago
    >IBM was so sure that the BIOS API could not be copyrighted they basically made their source public That is not how copyright works. You almost got it right with your comment "anyone reading the manuals to understand the BIOS was tainted and couldn't write a competitor." Copyright protects against copying. It does not protect against independent development. Hence the clean room set up.
    - protomyth 9y ago
      If the BIOS API was copyrightable, they would have had to do nothing and simply declare that they owned the copyright to the API and thus no clones. Since they couldn't do that, they had to go to the extra step.
      - hcknwscommenter 9y ago
        That is simply incorrect. Copyright covers copying. It does not cover independent re-implementation. That is the point of clean-room re-implementation. It is not copying because--> clean room. Silly Example: you design a phone book containing all the names and phone numbers of everyone in the city. To the extent that any subjective decisions were made in the design, it is a copyrighted work. I design a phone book. If I copy yours, it is a violation of your copyright. If I collate the underlying information and then make my own phone book it is not copying, even if it looks exactly the same.