3 ms·

> If I arrive independently at the same thing, then I didn't copy your work and therefore didn't violate your copyright. That's not how it works for copyright.

> If I arrive independently at the same thing, then I didn't copy your work and therefore didn't violate your copyright. That's not how it works for copyright. Beyond that, how do you independently arrive at an API that you are trying to have an exact copy of? Photography is not programming. I cannot run a bunch of words through a program until it prints out some book I want and then say I arrived at it independently. You honestly need to read the copyright laws as you are missing some information. [edit: the original premise of all this thread is IBM didn't try to copyright the BIOS API]

treis 9y ago
I suppose you could argue that black box reproduction is simply an elaborate form of copying. That's not relevant to this case because Google did simply just copy it.
- protomyth 9y ago
  Then why did you bring it up? My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable and then made an attempt at protecting it a different way. Oracle believes they can copyright an API and almost everything in the industry was built with the belief that you cannot copyright an API.
  - hcknwscommenter 9y ago
    >My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable Your original post was about IBM not being able to copyright the PC Bios. Which is simply not true in any way shape or form. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-computers-skirted-ibms-patents-and-gave-rise-to-eisa/ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp... Relevant portion "But one problem remained with their IBM-compatible machine. How would they recreate the IBM BIOS without breaching the copyright? Why did they need a compatible BIOS (basic input output system)? . . . Some companies, such as Eagle, copied the BIOS either by reading the IBM manual to understand which interrupt codes did what or by simply copying the hard-coded ROM chip that holds the BIOS. This breached the copyright that IBM had over the BIOS and so did not take IBM long to prevent such companies from selling more of those machines. However, there is a way to bypass these types of copyrights with the use of a “clean room”."
    - protomyth 9y ago
      Your original post was about IBM not being able to copyright the PC Bios. Which is simply not true in any way shape or form. No, no, no, that is not what I said. I was talking about the API of the BIOS. The BIOS source code is, of course, copyrightable. That is why IBM was able to make it very hard for people to copy it until folks did a proper clean room. Why would I go into detail about the counter measure if it was not copyrightable? That makes no sense.
      - hcknwscommenter 9y ago
        Interesting edit to your original post. So their countermeasure was to try to taint everyone in the whole universe so a clean room reimplimentation would not be possible? Wow. Interesting interpretation.
        protomyth 9y ago
        That is not an interpretation, that was an actual strategy. They put enough information and source code into the documents that described its function to taint anyone who read the documentation. There are multiple sources (and I do believe some TV) on IBM's strategy. Compaq's Garry Stimac realized the problem when he read the manuals. A clean room strategy was setup.
      - hcknwscommenter 9y ago
        You said: >My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable and then made an attempt at protecting it a different way. What "different way" are we talking about here? IBM asserted their copyright quite forcefully against Eagle and shut them down.
        protomyth 9y ago
        You really need to read ScottBurson's commen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693994 because you don't seem to understand the difference between an API and source code. Eagle directly copied the source code of the BIOS, they were not sued for copying the API.

treis 9y ago

I suppose you could argue that black box reproduction is simply an elaborate form of copying. That's not relevant to this case because Google did simply just copy it.

protomyth 9y ago
Then why did you bring it up? My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable and then made an attempt at protecting it a different way. Oracle believes they can copyright an API and almost everything in the industry was built with the belief that you cannot copyright an API.
- hcknwscommenter 9y ago
  >My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable Your original post was about IBM not being able to copyright the PC Bios. Which is simply not true in any way shape or form. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-computers-skirted-ibms-patents-and-gave-rise-to-eisa/ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp... Relevant portion "But one problem remained with their IBM-compatible machine. How would they recreate the IBM BIOS without breaching the copyright? Why did they need a compatible BIOS (basic input output system)? . . . Some companies, such as Eagle, copied the BIOS either by reading the IBM manual to understand which interrupt codes did what or by simply copying the hard-coded ROM chip that holds the BIOS. This breached the copyright that IBM had over the BIOS and so did not take IBM long to prevent such companies from selling more of those machines. However, there is a way to bypass these types of copyrights with the use of a “clean room”."
  - protomyth 9y ago
    Your original post was about IBM not being able to copyright the PC Bios. Which is simply not true in any way shape or form. No, no, no, that is not what I said. I was talking about the API of the BIOS. The BIOS source code is, of course, copyrightable. That is why IBM was able to make it very hard for people to copy it until folks did a proper clean room. Why would I go into detail about the counter measure if it was not copyrightable? That makes no sense.
    - hcknwscommenter 9y ago
      Interesting edit to your original post. So their countermeasure was to try to taint everyone in the whole universe so a clean room reimplimentation would not be possible? Wow. Interesting interpretation.
      - protomyth 9y ago
        That is not an interpretation, that was an actual strategy. They put enough information and source code into the documents that described its function to taint anyone who read the documentation. There are multiple sources (and I do believe some TV) on IBM's strategy. Compaq's Garry Stimac realized the problem when he read the manuals. A clean room strategy was setup.
    - hcknwscommenter 9y ago
      You said: >My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable and then made an attempt at protecting it a different way. What "different way" are we talking about here? IBM asserted their copyright quite forcefully against Eagle and shut them down.
      - protomyth 9y ago
        You really need to read ScottBurson's commen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693994 because you don't seem to understand the difference between an API and source code. Eagle directly copied the source code of the BIOS, they were not sued for copying the API.