3 ms·

I'm sure in the US this is probably legally possible, but can you clarify why/how one can patent an API? An API in and of itself is nothing, it seems ridiculou

by heresy 16y ago

I'm sure in the US this is probably legally possible, but can you clarify why/how one can patent an API? An API in and of itself is nothing, it seems ridiculous to me that it can be afforded any legal protections. I don't see how an API is different from a protocol in a legal sense, and we have reverse engineered protocols all over the place (e.g. Samba). And from an API point of view: Wine, ReactOS. I just don't understand what Google is doing wrong, other than succeeding where Sun never did.

anigbrowl 16y ago
Sorry for not answering last night, I overlooked your question. The patents are not for an API, they're for things like sandboxing, preprocessors etc. You can see them all here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38768100/Oracle-v-Google-Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/38768100/Oracle-v-Google-Complaint Should such things be patentable, maybe not but the fact is that they are at present. In the US, if I patent something and you come up with your own invention which does the same thing, I can say you're infringing. It doesn't matter whether you were even aware of my invention (except for the purpose of awarding damages); the patent is granted for the purpose which is fulfilled rather more than the mechanism used. On the upside, patents last 20 years and after than anyone can clone your idea (sooner in some cases). Claims about the API etc are copyright claims, which here include source code, but also specifications and documentation and so on. The basic argument from Oracle's side is that Sun owned Java, but granted people the freedom to do whatever they liked with it up to a point. Go past that point, and you've broken the agreement and the grant of rights is revoked. But there was no agreement, you might say - however, there usually is. You have to acknowledge one to download the JDK, and you're agreeing to the terms therein. The reason Google is making such strenuous effort to point out that Dalvik != Java is because Java is not actually so open that they could just port it. Building their own compiler and VM gets them off a particular contractual hook in the licensing terms, but the problem is that going to such lengths to comply with a single provision in the license creates an implicit acceptance of the license as a whole, and (like most contracts) said license also includes a provision that if one part fails when its legality challenged, all the other parts still remain in force.

by heresy 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago

Sorry for not answering last night, I overlooked your question. The patents are not for an API, they're for things like sandboxing, preprocessors etc. You can see them all here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38768100/Oracle-v-Google-Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/38768100/Oracle-v-Google-Complaint Should such things be patentable, maybe not but the fact is that they are at present. In the US, if I patent something and you come up with your own invention which does the same thing, I can say you're infringing. It doesn't matter whether you were even aware of my invention (except for the purpose of awarding damages); the patent is granted for the purpose which is fulfilled rather more than the mechanism used. On the upside, patents last 20 years and after than anyone can clone your idea (sooner in some cases). Claims about the API etc are copyright claims, which here include source code, but also specifications and documentation and so on. The basic argument from Oracle's side is that Sun owned Java, but granted people the freedom to do whatever they liked with it up to a point. Go past that point, and you've broken the agreement and the grant of rights is revoked. But there was no agreement, you might say - however, there usually is. You have to acknowledge one to download the JDK, and you're agreeing to the terms therein. The reason Google is making such strenuous effort to point out that Dalvik != Java is because Java is not actually so open that they could just port it. Building their own compiler and VM gets them off a particular contractual hook in the licensing terms, but the problem is that going to such lengths to comply with a single provision in the license creates an implicit acceptance of the license as a whole, and (like most contracts) said license also includes a provision that if one part fails when its legality challenged, all the other parts still remain in force.