4 ms·

I did not follow every step, but assuming Oracle win this, will it also apply to Amazon proposing DocumentDB with the same API that MongoDB ?

by seren 7y ago

CobrastanJorji 7y ago
Who even knows? If APIs are copyrighted and implementing them is a crime, Tim Berners-Lee might end up a billionaire.
- AdamN 7y ago
  :-) Actually CERN would get that $$$
- coldpie 7y ago
  I wonder who "invented" the blink tag? Or the other hundreds of thousands of APIs every web browser implements? And who is responsible for those browser API implementations shipped to millions end users in hundreds of thousands of products? If you thought patent trolling was bad, Oracle just turned that into a molehill.
- kllrnohj 7y ago
  See also everyone (including Oracle) that copied Perl 5's regular expression API, and typically even say that straight in their own documentation (again, including Java's).
  - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    How does Java not copy much of C's API / syntax and type system -- which I'm sure is mostly copied from something else. It's turtles all the way down.
737min 7y ago
Or Postgres APIs? Nginx plugins? Etc
- gnulinux 7y ago
  What about programming languages? They're interfaces too. Can Guido sue pypy team if he wanted to. Seems like this precedent says he can.
burlesona 7y ago
Seems like it would. Which, maybe isn’t a horrible thing, considering it would prevent a company like Amazon from just nuking a vendor like Mongo by cloning their tech and offering it in their PaaS. I would hope that we end up with something more like FRAND rules than conventional copyrights, though.
- klohto 7y ago
  You cannot be serious. MongoDB chose a bad type of license, it’s only their fault. By your logic, any fork that was successful more than predecessor should be punished.
deathanatos 7y ago
And Windows, whose APIs are from OS/2's Presentation Management layer. And Linux/OS X, many of whose APIs are from Unix! I don't know where Oracle thinks the madness should end, and I don't think they care.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Go back to the Phoenix BIOS. The original IBM BIOS interface would be covered by this, I expect. So if IBM could prevent BIOS clones, we never would have had the PC-compatible business, and IBM would have been able to prevent PCs from ever being powerful enough to encroach on their mainframe business (apart from Apple, I guess). Since copyright expires after 95 years, we could have had PC clones starting in... 2076. I prefer the way our industry evolved without interfaces being copyrightable.
- tzs 7y ago
  Mac OS would probably be safe because it is a Unix [1]. I'd expect that the legal framework that was set up to allow the Open Group to certify things as being officially Unix included having such certification include permission to use the necessary IP to implement a Unix. [1] https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3653.htm https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3653.htm
- flomo 7y ago
  OS/2 I think was visa-versa, but IBM and Microsoft were in bed with each other so that was all contractual. You guys need to find an example where one company offered licensing and the other simply refused to negotiate.
  - deathanatos 7y ago
    Ah, I think you're right about the OS/2 one. (I did some researching, and it seems like it actually might have been developed by MS, which I did not know. I knew there was some collaboration, but I thought it was only for the ability to run Windows apps natively in OS/2.) > You guys need to find an example where one company offered licensing and the other simply refused to negotiate. Part of the trouble with this, I think, is that prior to this case, nobody thought there was a need to license this, since it wasn't covered by copyright by any sane reading of the law. (And I still think it isn't, and the appellate court erred in overturning the district court.)
tanilama 7y ago
Languages are API too, right? In a way. This might limit someone else's to reimplement the language's own specs? Something like LLVM will be forbidden in this case? And Web is a complete mess, if CSS also an API? Are different JS engines will be allowed to be implemented later?

I did not follow every step, but assuming Oracle win this, will it also apply to Amazon proposing DocumentDB with the same API that MongoDB ?

by seren 7y ago

I did not follow every step, but assuming Oracle win this, will it also apply to Amazon proposing DocumentDB with the same API that MongoDB ?

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

Who even knows? If APIs are copyrighted and implementing them is a crime, Tim Berners-Lee might end up a billionaire.

AdamN 7y ago
:-) Actually CERN would get that $$$
coldpie 7y ago
I wonder who "invented" the blink tag? Or the other hundreds of thousands of APIs every web browser implements? And who is responsible for those browser API implementations shipped to millions end users in hundreds of thousands of products? If you thought patent trolling was bad, Oracle just turned that into a molehill.
kllrnohj 7y ago
See also everyone (including Oracle) that copied Perl 5's regular expression API, and typically even say that straight in their own documentation (again, including Java's).
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  How does Java not copy much of C's API / syntax and type system -- which I'm sure is mostly copied from something else. It's turtles all the way down.

737min 7y ago

Or Postgres APIs? Nginx plugins? Etc

gnulinux 7y ago
What about programming languages? They're interfaces too. Can Guido sue pypy team if he wanted to. Seems like this precedent says he can.

burlesona 7y ago

Seems like it would. Which, maybe isn’t a horrible thing, considering it would prevent a company like Amazon from just nuking a vendor like Mongo by cloning their tech and offering it in their PaaS. I would hope that we end up with something more like FRAND rules than conventional copyrights, though.

klohto 7y ago
You cannot be serious. MongoDB chose a bad type of license, it’s only their fault. By your logic, any fork that was successful more than predecessor should be punished.

deathanatos 7y ago

And Windows, whose APIs are from OS/2's Presentation Management layer. And Linux/OS X, many of whose APIs are from Unix! I don't know where Oracle thinks the madness should end, and I don't think they care.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Go back to the Phoenix BIOS. The original IBM BIOS interface would be covered by this, I expect. So if IBM could prevent BIOS clones, we never would have had the PC-compatible business, and IBM would have been able to prevent PCs from ever being powerful enough to encroach on their mainframe business (apart from Apple, I guess). Since copyright expires after 95 years, we could have had PC clones starting in... 2076. I prefer the way our industry evolved without interfaces being copyrightable.
tzs 7y ago
Mac OS would probably be safe because it is a Unix [1]. I'd expect that the legal framework that was set up to allow the Open Group to certify things as being officially Unix included having such certification include permission to use the necessary IP to implement a Unix. [1] https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3653.htm https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3653.htm
flomo 7y ago
OS/2 I think was visa-versa, but IBM and Microsoft were in bed with each other so that was all contractual. You guys need to find an example where one company offered licensing and the other simply refused to negotiate.
- deathanatos 7y ago
  Ah, I think you're right about the OS/2 one. (I did some researching, and it seems like it actually might have been developed by MS, which I did not know. I knew there was some collaboration, but I thought it was only for the ability to run Windows apps natively in OS/2.) > You guys need to find an example where one company offered licensing and the other simply refused to negotiate. Part of the trouble with this, I think, is that prior to this case, nobody thought there was a need to license this, since it wasn't covered by copyright by any sane reading of the law. (And I still think it isn't, and the appellate court erred in overturning the district court.)

tanilama 7y ago

Languages are API too, right? In a way. This might limit someone else's to reimplement the language's own specs? Something like LLVM will be forbidden in this case? And Web is a complete mess, if CSS also an API? Are different JS engines will be allowed to be implemented later?