Are they complaining about someone else implementing the same API? Since the entire point of an API is interoperability, what could the problem possibly be? A

Are they complaining about someone else implementing the same API? Since the entire point of an API is interoperability, what could the problem possibly be? Are Smartcar claiming their product is a series of URLs? And that sounds sane enough to defend? Or are they complaining this other company is copying their documentation, which is evidently released with a permissive license? Is Smartcar's product the API documentation? Either way, this is far removed from my understanding of how computers work. Copyright exemptions for compatibility work have a long precedent. If Otonomo's business model is to build Smartcar-compatible products, and Smartcar does not like this, it seems like they should have more carefully considered what their product is, and how to protect it.