6 ms·

The legal arguments in any case pertain only to that case, but it is a necessary condition for a work to be covered by copyright is that it "fixed in a tangible

by pron 7y ago

The legal arguments in any case pertain only to that case, but it is a necessary condition for a work to be covered by copyright is that it "fixed in a tangible medium of expression"[1], i.e. that there is some fixed text (or a picture, or an audio or video recording) that is the work (although once it exists, derivatives are also protected). This is true for a code API, but not for a protocol. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_of_expression https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_o...

gpm 7y ago
How is a rest api document any less tangible than a source code document?
- pron 7y ago
  What piece of text that is the REST protocol?
  - gpm 7y ago
    Here is a simple REST protocol: Send a GET request to some_website.com/some_protocol to get back a jpg of a cat I wrote it down, and thus it was "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". As I understand that requirement of the law that is all that is required. If I just told you that verbally, and we did not write it down, record what I was saying via a mic, or anything else, then it would not be fixed. No one does protocols like that though.
    - pron 7y ago
      What you have here is a particular description of a REST protocol that is fixed, and indeed, if it fulfills the other requirements of copyrightability, it could be copyrighted, and I wouldn't be allowed to, say, sell T-shirts with that sentence printed on them. But if you developed a protocol and I asked you what is the work that you have produced, that work wouldn't be that sentence, but the algorithm it describes. The same applies to algorithms, BTW. If I write and publish an algorithm, it is possible that my paper and even the particular pseudocode I used is copyrighted, but that's not "the work" (of the algorithm) nor is it a part of it. That is why even though the paper is copyrighted, the algorithm itself is not, although it could perhaps be patented. As confusing as it may sound, in the US the situation is: the paper describing the algorithm is copyrighted, a program implementing the algorithm is copyrighted, the algorithm itself cannot be, but it can be patented. Whether or not code APIs can be copyrighted, they are different from protocols just as programs are different from algorithms, as a certain fixed piece of text is certainly an important part of the work. That may not be a sufficient condition for copyright, but it is a necessary one.
      - gpm 7y ago
        If Oracle is right, copyright protects the "[not relevant to the case] GET [not relevant to the case] <base_url>/some_protocol [not relevant to the case]" and it would be copyright infringement. Well really I'd probably need to have a few more APIs involved, such that I have a tree structure similar to classes, but the point stands. All that this subdiscussion was discussing was whether or not REST APIs are fixed in a medium as required, they are.
        pron 7y ago
        No, because the fixed portions are too small to be copyrighted, and they're also not creative. Being a fixed expression is just one of many necessary conditions, not a sufficient one. Also, not every copying of a copyrighted work is an infringement. > they are. They most certainly are not. If you think REST protocols are like code APIs, you should be able to explain why algorithms are not copyrightable but programs are. The law already makes a distinction between those two, so you'll need to explain why that distinction does not apply for protocols vs. APIs.
        gpm 7y ago
        > Being a fixed expression is just one of many necessary conditions And yet it is the only one you raised, and the only one I responded to in this thread. You are moving the goal posts. If these posts were legal briefs the judge would say you have waived the rest of your arguments and I would have won (Waiving arguments being the legal equivalent to moving goalposts).
        pron 7y ago
        Because it is the difference between protocols and APIs, and why, regardless of the status of code APIs, protocols cannot be copyrighted. This is also the difference between programs and algorithms. But you seem to have interpreted the necessary condition that a work must be fixed in order to be eligible for copyright as "any fixed portion of a work is copyrightable." This is untrue both because being fixed is necessary but insufficient for copyright, and because tiny portions of a work aren't works in themselves. Also, I have not claimed that anything that might be called an API and is fixed is necessarily copyrightable. I only said what is definitely not copyrighted. So no goalposts have been moved, you just misunderstood the necessary condition and my point: Protocols (like algorithms), unlike code APIs (and programs), aren't fixed, and so cannot be copyrighted regardless of anything else that may or may not be. That some tiny portions of a protocol might be fixed does not change the status of the work.
monocasa 7y ago
There's obviously code implementing the REST protocol that's copywritten.
int_19h 7y ago
The moment your REST API includes any kind of validating schema, that will be the copyrightable "code API".
- pron 7y ago
  That schema could be copyrighted, but not equivalent ones, because the protocol isn't its schema. That's like saying that an algorithm can be "fixed" by writing a program that performs it, but if you do that, only the program (and its derivations) are protected, not the algorithm (the algorithms can be patented but not copyrighted). A program (including its code API) is a piece of text, and then its derivations are covered. A protocol, like an algorithm, is an idea that could be made into a piece of text, but the US copyright code explicitly states that that idea itself is not copyrighted. For example, you and I could go to a sporting event and write down a description of it. Both of our descriptions are copyrighted, and any derivation of mine or yours are protected, but your description is not a violation of mine and vice versa, and neither is any other description by someone who saw the event but didn't derive her description from mine or yours. Similarly for software, BTW. If you look at what a program does and then write a new program that does the same thing -- that's not copyright infringement, as you didn't derive your program from the fixed work of the original.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    This whole case is about the "Structure, Sequence, and Organization" of the API. It's the abstract collection of API entry points, not any specific implementations. Yes, it's openly in conflict of previous definitions of copyright.
    - pron 7y ago
      Yet again, I am not talking about whether code API is copyrighted or not; I'm just saying that regardless of the ruling, protocols aren't copyrighted. I said nothing about a particular implementation, but a code API, unlike a REST protocol, is a fixed expression. If that fixed expression is copyrighted, then what the copyright protects is a whole other discussion. Harry Potter is a fixed expression, but once applied, its copyright doesn't protect just a particular sequence of words, but various derivations of it as well (like translations). As to whether or not what this case is about is "in conflict with previous definitions of copyright," I have no opinion of the matter.
wtallis 7y ago
I think you're confusing the "fixed text" requirement with the question of whether the Java language constrains the declaration of an API to a unique textual representation. The latter is more or less true, but the declaration that the compiler ingests isn't the only way to describe a Java API in writing.
- pron 7y ago
  The two things are completely separate, but having a fixed expression is a necessary requirement. If I go to a sporting event and describe it in an article, then my article is copyrighted, and derivations of it are protected (translations etc.). But there could also be other people who wrote different original articles describing the same event, each of them is copyrighted, but none a derivation of the other or of mine. But the fact that all of those articles are different descriptions of the same match doesn't mean they're not all copyrighted, and that their derivations aren't protected. Each of those articles is a fixed expression, but the game itself isn't.

by pron 7y ago

gpm 7y ago

How is a rest api document any less tangible than a source code document?

pron 7y ago
What piece of text that is the REST protocol?
- gpm 7y ago
  Here is a simple REST protocol: Send a GET request to some_website.com/some_protocol to get back a jpg of a cat I wrote it down, and thus it was "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". As I understand that requirement of the law that is all that is required. If I just told you that verbally, and we did not write it down, record what I was saying via a mic, or anything else, then it would not be fixed. No one does protocols like that though.
  - pron 7y ago
    What you have here is a particular description of a REST protocol that is fixed, and indeed, if it fulfills the other requirements of copyrightability, it could be copyrighted, and I wouldn't be allowed to, say, sell T-shirts with that sentence printed on them. But if you developed a protocol and I asked you what is the work that you have produced, that work wouldn't be that sentence, but the algorithm it describes. The same applies to algorithms, BTW. If I write and publish an algorithm, it is possible that my paper and even the particular pseudocode I used is copyrighted, but that's not "the work" (of the algorithm) nor is it a part of it. That is why even though the paper is copyrighted, the algorithm itself is not, although it could perhaps be patented. As confusing as it may sound, in the US the situation is: the paper describing the algorithm is copyrighted, a program implementing the algorithm is copyrighted, the algorithm itself cannot be, but it can be patented. Whether or not code APIs can be copyrighted, they are different from protocols just as programs are different from algorithms, as a certain fixed piece of text is certainly an important part of the work. That may not be a sufficient condition for copyright, but it is a necessary one.
    - gpm 7y ago
      If Oracle is right, copyright protects the "[not relevant to the case] GET [not relevant to the case] <base_url>/some_protocol [not relevant to the case]" and it would be copyright infringement. Well really I'd probably need to have a few more APIs involved, such that I have a tree structure similar to classes, but the point stands. All that this subdiscussion was discussing was whether or not REST APIs are fixed in a medium as required, they are.
      - pron 7y ago
        No, because the fixed portions are too small to be copyrighted, and they're also not creative. Being a fixed expression is just one of many necessary conditions, not a sufficient one. Also, not every copying of a copyrighted work is an infringement. > they are. They most certainly are not. If you think REST protocols are like code APIs, you should be able to explain why algorithms are not copyrightable but programs are. The law already makes a distinction between those two, so you'll need to explain why that distinction does not apply for protocols vs. APIs.
        gpm 7y ago
        > Being a fixed expression is just one of many necessary conditions And yet it is the only one you raised, and the only one I responded to in this thread. You are moving the goal posts. If these posts were legal briefs the judge would say you have waived the rest of your arguments and I would have won (Waiving arguments being the legal equivalent to moving goalposts).
        pron 7y ago
        Because it is the difference between protocols and APIs, and why, regardless of the status of code APIs, protocols cannot be copyrighted. This is also the difference between programs and algorithms. But you seem to have interpreted the necessary condition that a work must be fixed in order to be eligible for copyright as "any fixed portion of a work is copyrightable." This is untrue both because being fixed is necessary but insufficient for copyright, and because tiny portions of a work aren't works in themselves. Also, I have not claimed that anything that might be called an API and is fixed is necessarily copyrightable. I only said what is definitely not copyrighted. So no goalposts have been moved, you just misunderstood the necessary condition and my point: Protocols (like algorithms), unlike code APIs (and programs), aren't fixed, and so cannot be copyrighted regardless of anything else that may or may not be. That some tiny portions of a protocol might be fixed does not change the status of the work.

monocasa 7y ago

There's obviously code implementing the REST protocol that's copywritten.

int_19h 7y ago

The moment your REST API includes any kind of validating schema, that will be the copyrightable "code API".

pron 7y ago
That schema could be copyrighted, but not equivalent ones, because the protocol isn't its schema. That's like saying that an algorithm can be "fixed" by writing a program that performs it, but if you do that, only the program (and its derivations) are protected, not the algorithm (the algorithms can be patented but not copyrighted). A program (including its code API) is a piece of text, and then its derivations are covered. A protocol, like an algorithm, is an idea that could be made into a piece of text, but the US copyright code explicitly states that that idea itself is not copyrighted. For example, you and I could go to a sporting event and write down a description of it. Both of our descriptions are copyrighted, and any derivation of mine or yours are protected, but your description is not a violation of mine and vice versa, and neither is any other description by someone who saw the event but didn't derive her description from mine or yours. Similarly for software, BTW. If you look at what a program does and then write a new program that does the same thing -- that's not copyright infringement, as you didn't derive your program from the fixed work of the original.
- monocasa 7y ago
  This whole case is about the "Structure, Sequence, and Organization" of the API. It's the abstract collection of API entry points, not any specific implementations. Yes, it's openly in conflict of previous definitions of copyright.
  - pron 7y ago
    Yet again, I am not talking about whether code API is copyrighted or not; I'm just saying that regardless of the ruling, protocols aren't copyrighted. I said nothing about a particular implementation, but a code API, unlike a REST protocol, is a fixed expression. If that fixed expression is copyrighted, then what the copyright protects is a whole other discussion. Harry Potter is a fixed expression, but once applied, its copyright doesn't protect just a particular sequence of words, but various derivations of it as well (like translations). As to whether or not what this case is about is "in conflict with previous definitions of copyright," I have no opinion of the matter.

wtallis 7y ago

I think you're confusing the "fixed text" requirement with the question of whether the Java language constrains the declaration of an API to a unique textual representation. The latter is more or less true, but the declaration that the compiler ingests isn't the only way to describe a Java API in writing.

pron 7y ago
The two things are completely separate, but having a fixed expression is a necessary requirement. If I go to a sporting event and describe it in an article, then my article is copyrighted, and derivations of it are protected (translations etc.). But there could also be other people who wrote different original articles describing the same event, each of them is copyrighted, but none a derivation of the other or of mine. But the fact that all of those articles are different descriptions of the same match doesn't mean they're not all copyrighted, and that their derivations aren't protected. Each of those articles is a fixed expression, but the game itself isn't.