3 ms·

How does this not apply, in any way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_of_software_copyrights_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.o

• hcknwscommenter 9y ago
  Many commentators on this thread are desperate to come to the opposite conclusion despite the clear case law on this question.
  • girvo 9y ago
    Because it has some pretty wide ranging effects on our industry, mostly negative (in my opinion). Though wishes and hopes don’t change court decisions, of course.
• dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I don't understand how this is never brought up with regard to API copyright. API's are software, software has been deemed copyright-able, thus, API's are copyright-able. This is, essentially, the fallacy of division. Interfaces to software have been rules non-copyrightable despite being an element of software and thr software itself being copyrightable; this is particularly the case for user interfaces (Lotus v. Borland is the landmark case here.) There have been many comments from the legal community, including, IIRC, judges that sit on the 9th Circuit, that the Federal Circuit (which heard this case on appeal because of the patent claims in it) has misapplied binding Ninth Circuit precedent (which is supposed to control on coypright issues in this case because this came up from a district court under the 9th Circuit, and copyright law is not one of the areas where the Federal Circuit has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction.)