5 ms·

I'm split. IBM wanted companies to embrace SQL - because then people implement applications already compatible with their database product, and conceptually co

I'm split. IBM wanted companies to embrace SQL - because then people implement applications already compatible with their database product, and conceptually could migrate without rewriting their applications. Amazon wanted companies to embrace S3 - for the same reason. Or maybe they didn't, but they decided that the API was the least significant compelling part of their product - that people would still choose S3 regardless of whether other storage offerings had the same API - for the cost, and durability. Sun wanted Google to use Java. Because more developers using the language, regardless of the underlying implementation is better for the entire ecosystem. Oracle doesn't. So to some degree i do feel like consent matters here. It doesn't matter if Oracle copied Amazon's S3 API illegally if Amazon doesn't care enough to pursue it. Finally, I hate arguments that say "It's just the API". We all know a good API makes or breaks developer tools. Ultimately, I feel like it goes without question that a decision in Oracle's favour will cause irrevocable damage to the industry and permit all sorts of bad actors to start looking to purchase ownership to APIs just so they could sue those they consider infringers. But I can't help but feel that ultimately Oracle has a point :(

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
teruakohatu 7y ago
> But I can't help but feel that ultimately Oracle has a point :( Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. If it was a patent then at least the term would expire, but copyright lasts a very, very long time. Car companies would love to copyright mechanical interfaces and so prevent anyone from making aftermarket parts.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. The purpose of copyright, according to the constitution is "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts". So generally, things should be copyrightable if granting the copyright results in more and higher quality work. If APIs are indeed protected, there it is plausible argument that we will have more of them and they will be of higher quality.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    > If APIs are indeed protected, there it is plausible argument that we will have more of them and they will be of higher quality. Sure, but that immediately brings to mind the question of whether such fragmentation will be a hindrance to technological progress. And there's little doubt about which way the evidence tilts on that question—there's way too much mainstream software that would not have been legal without the right to reimplement an API without a license. So then it becomes a question of whether it is better for the law to promote good API design, or to promote actual useful software.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    The idea that giving people an effectively eternal copyright interest in making interoperable software would improve software strains credulity. It seems extremely likely that the human race may not exist long enough for current works to ever have their copyright expire.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > The idea that giving people an effectively eternal copyright interest in making interoperable software would improve software strains credulity. Why would it? Giving a company the right to prevent interoperability does not necessarily mean they will invoke that right. It also might promote alternative APIs potentially fragmenting the market, but also inventivizing various approaches. It's not clear that this is the case, but it's not clear that it isn't either.
      - teruakohatu 7y ago
        > ... but also inventivizing various approaches You may as well argue standards have lowered innovation. > Giving a company the right to prevent interoperability does not necessarily mean they will invoke that right I hope that whoever created int max(int a, int b) is benevolent because just about every programmer has reinvented that at some point. What about Response get(String url) which returns an HTTP GET response. We have probably all written that at some point and most HTTP libraries implement it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
virgilp 7y ago
> Sun wanted Google to use Java. [...] Oracle doesn't. By your reasoning, IBM could spin-off a division with intellectual property rights to SQL, sell it to Google for 10B, who could then claim "we never agreed SQL should be free!" and sue Oracle into bankruptcy
- deanCommie 7y ago
  Maybe they should! :D
- cmiles74 7y ago
  Isn't that how the whole SCO vs. Linux lawsuits worked? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes
CogitoCogito 7y ago
> Sun wanted Google to use Java. Because more developers using the language, regardless of the underlying implementation is better for the entire ecosystem. > Oracle doesn't. > So to some degree i do feel like consent matters here. It doesn't matter if Oracle copied Amazon's S3 API illegally if Amazon doesn't care enough to pursue it. If consent matters, then Google implicitly received it from Sun, but had it removed afterwards by Oracle. So if you actually support Oracle here, I don't understand how you can say "consent matters". The consent was given, yet you yourself don't consider it in Google's favor.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

teruakohatu 7y ago

> But I can't help but feel that ultimately Oracle has a point :( Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. If it was a patent then at least the term would expire, but copyright lasts a very, very long time. Car companies would love to copyright mechanical interfaces and so prevent anyone from making aftermarket parts.

speedplane 7y ago
> Copyright is not some innate right. Interfaces should not be copyrightable just because they require some level of competence to design. The purpose of copyright, according to the constitution is "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts". So generally, things should be copyrightable if granting the copyright results in more and higher quality work. If APIs are indeed protected, there it is plausible argument that we will have more of them and they will be of higher quality.
- wtallis 7y ago
  > If APIs are indeed protected, there it is plausible argument that we will have more of them and they will be of higher quality. Sure, but that immediately brings to mind the question of whether such fragmentation will be a hindrance to technological progress. And there's little doubt about which way the evidence tilts on that question—there's way too much mainstream software that would not have been legal without the right to reimplement an API without a license. So then it becomes a question of whether it is better for the law to promote good API design, or to promote actual useful software.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  The idea that giving people an effectively eternal copyright interest in making interoperable software would improve software strains credulity. It seems extremely likely that the human race may not exist long enough for current works to ever have their copyright expire.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > The idea that giving people an effectively eternal copyright interest in making interoperable software would improve software strains credulity. Why would it? Giving a company the right to prevent interoperability does not necessarily mean they will invoke that right. It also might promote alternative APIs potentially fragmenting the market, but also inventivizing various approaches. It's not clear that this is the case, but it's not clear that it isn't either.
    - teruakohatu 7y ago
      > ... but also inventivizing various approaches You may as well argue standards have lowered innovation. > Giving a company the right to prevent interoperability does not necessarily mean they will invoke that right I hope that whoever created int max(int a, int b) is benevolent because just about every programmer has reinvented that at some point. What about Response get(String url) which returns an HTTP GET response. We have probably all written that at some point and most HTTP libraries implement it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

virgilp 7y ago

> Sun wanted Google to use Java. [...] Oracle doesn't. By your reasoning, IBM could spin-off a division with intellectual property rights to SQL, sell it to Google for 10B, who could then claim "we never agreed SQL should be free!" and sue Oracle into bankruptcy

deanCommie 7y ago
Maybe they should! :D
cmiles74 7y ago
Isn't that how the whole SCO vs. Linux lawsuits worked? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes

CogitoCogito 7y ago

> Sun wanted Google to use Java. Because more developers using the language, regardless of the underlying implementation is better for the entire ecosystem. > Oracle doesn't. > So to some degree i do feel like consent matters here. It doesn't matter if Oracle copied Amazon's S3 API illegally if Amazon doesn't care enough to pursue it. If consent matters, then Google implicitly received it from Sun, but had it removed afterwards by Oracle. So if you actually support Oracle here, I don't understand how you can say "consent matters". The consent was given, yet you yourself don't consider it in Google's favor.