3 ms·

> How does it impact us as developers either way? “Treating APIs as copyrightable has a profound negative impact on interoperability and innovation. And it goe

> How does it impact us as developers either way? “Treating APIs as copyrightable has a profound negative impact on interoperability and innovation. And it goes against decades of tradition and common practice in the software world.” https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/eff-asks-federal-circuit-fix-its-terrible-api-copyright-decision https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/eff-asks-federal-circu...

treis 7y ago
This is only true if you exclude the middle ground of APIs being copyrightable with fair use exceptions. In other words, you can't kick start your program by copying the structure of another, but you can create a compatibility layer to your novel program.
- jandrese 7y ago
  I don't see how creating a compatibility layer makes it fair use. Unless you're only using 5% of the original API or have a strictly educational use you're going to be in violation. Even then you'll need to fight it out in court if the original party is litigious like Oracle and there's absolutely no guarantee that you'll get a jury that understands and is friendly to the concept for Fair Use. Media companies have been basically claiming that Fair Use is a myth for many years now, often successfully.
  - treis 7y ago
    Because it's transformative: >The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use >In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being an important indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ IMHO simply re-implementing an API is not creating something new. It's just redoing something that has already been done. A translation layer from one API to another is a new thing separate from the original API.
id7f8gmh 7y ago
Controlling how the issue is framed has a larger impact than who wins. Whether APIs are copyrightable is beside the point and no matter who wins, we all lose: If Google/Oracle can copyright APIs, then they are free to use their market positions to block competition because the very ability to inter-operate with other programs would be infringement, and their monopoly forces everyone to acknowledge their presence. If Google/Oracle cannot copyright APIS, then they're free to use their market positions to snuff out upstarts by copying / re-implementing their programs. Whether some method signatures are the same is just evidence suggesting copyright infringement, not infringement itself. I can write a song with some of the same words as another song. That doesn't answer the question of whether that's copyright infringement.
- lloydde 7y ago
  > If Google/Oracle cannot copyright APIS, then they're free to use their market positions to snuff out upstarts by copying / re-implementing their programs. Do you have examples of this? I’m having a hard time thinking of types of programs that are susceptible. I’d argue that the small businesses have much more to lose by APIS being copyrightable as you then are locked out of ecosystems. You’d have to pay to play to build compatible or replacement products. If this was the rule of the land in the 70s+ would we have had GNU tools or BSDs?

treis 7y ago

This is only true if you exclude the middle ground of APIs being copyrightable with fair use exceptions. In other words, you can't kick start your program by copying the structure of another, but you can create a compatibility layer to your novel program.

jandrese 7y ago
I don't see how creating a compatibility layer makes it fair use. Unless you're only using 5% of the original API or have a strictly educational use you're going to be in violation. Even then you'll need to fight it out in court if the original party is litigious like Oracle and there's absolutely no guarantee that you'll get a jury that understands and is friendly to the concept for Fair Use. Media companies have been basically claiming that Fair Use is a myth for many years now, often successfully.
- treis 7y ago
  Because it's transformative: >The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use >In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being an important indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ IMHO simply re-implementing an API is not creating something new. It's just redoing something that has already been done. A translation layer from one API to another is a new thing separate from the original API.

id7f8gmh 7y ago

Controlling how the issue is framed has a larger impact than who wins. Whether APIs are copyrightable is beside the point and no matter who wins, we all lose: If Google/Oracle can copyright APIs, then they are free to use their market positions to block competition because the very ability to inter-operate with other programs would be infringement, and their monopoly forces everyone to acknowledge their presence. If Google/Oracle cannot copyright APIS, then they're free to use their market positions to snuff out upstarts by copying / re-implementing their programs. Whether some method signatures are the same is just evidence suggesting copyright infringement, not infringement itself. I can write a song with some of the same words as another song. That doesn't answer the question of whether that's copyright infringement.

lloydde 7y ago
> If Google/Oracle cannot copyright APIS, then they're free to use their market positions to snuff out upstarts by copying / re-implementing their programs. Do you have examples of this? I’m having a hard time thinking of types of programs that are susceptible. I’d argue that the small businesses have much more to lose by APIS being copyrightable as you then are locked out of ecosystems. You’d have to pay to play to build compatible or replacement products. If this was the rule of the land in the 70s+ would we have had GNU tools or BSDs?