4 ms·

I think the playbook is just a bad analogy because it misses that point of what an interface is. It's the means of connecting two dissimilar mechanisms. A trans

I think the playbook is just a bad analogy because it misses that point of what an interface is. It's the means of connecting two dissimilar mechanisms. A translation layer. I'd have argued it's more like copyrighting doorknob placement (opposite hinge, at hand height) and operation (twisting) on doors vs. patenting a novel mechanism inside the doorknob. A football playbook is more like the blueprints of the inside of the doorknob. Of course it's patentable if playbooks are patentable (I presume they are if considered works of choreography as in a dance).

Shakahs 6y ago
I think the QWERTY analogy quoted in the article is perfect. QWERTY is on typewriters, computers, and smartphones. Same interface, completely different implementations. And this is technology that everyday people are familiar with.
- Chris_Newton 6y ago
  It has always seemed to me that a good analogy for the API situation would be the design of typefaces (as distinct from a particular implementation of that design through, for example, instructions in a font file), which receives special treatment in US law and is not subject to copyright in that jurisdiction. As far as I can see (but please note that I am not even in the US, never mind a legal scholar) the relevant US law is 37 CFR § 202.1 about “Material not subject to copyright” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/202.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/202.1). This enumerates several cases that are explicitly excluded from copyright protection. One is “typeface as typeface”, which was apparently interpreted as described above in a litigated case (Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer). An argument has certainly been made, though I can’t immediately find the original source, that this exclusion is justified because of the utilitarian nature of a typeface design: allowing one party to control all use of it would be against the public interest, because ultimately that principle could allow for all printed communication to become controlled. It seems to me that APIs fulfil a similar purpose. They are not useful in themselves, lacking a corresponding implementation. They are, however, an essential basis for standardisation, interoperability and communication between practitioners. Under 202.1(b) of the law cited above, another class of works excluded from copyright protection is “Ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing”. I wonder whether a similar argument about the utilitarian nature of APIs as a specification distinct from its implementation could be made based on that.
jacobr1 6y ago
But we are talking about copyright, not patents. So to stretch your analogy. Imagine I'm a door manufacturer, or maybe a manufacturer of tools for construction so that professionals can make their own doors. I create some kind of stencil that has the doorknob placement cut-out. And maybe a few variants with places for windows and such. The general idea of such a stencil might be patentable, even if the general standard dimensions are not. The tool is a unique idea (maybe). But we are talking about copywritten material. The specific stencil design, that you could photocopy is the thing in question. And that is one of several arguments Oracle made, that api interface is a stencil. I think I would agree the law supports that argument from what I know about it, copyright is pretty broad. But at the same time, I think that is perverse and we should change the law.
mamon 6y ago
Or compare APIs to the car interface: steering wheel + pedals. If one car manufacturer was able to copyright them, then what are other manufacturers supposed to do? The second one can use joystick for steering, and maybe a lever for braking and acceleration. The third one has to invent something even weirder. Everybody loses: manufacturers, because they can't easily create competing products, and users, because they have to re-learn driving every time they change car brand.

Shakahs 6y ago

I think the QWERTY analogy quoted in the article is perfect. QWERTY is on typewriters, computers, and smartphones. Same interface, completely different implementations. And this is technology that everyday people are familiar with.

Chris_Newton 6y ago
It has always seemed to me that a good analogy for the API situation would be the design of typefaces (as distinct from a particular implementation of that design through, for example, instructions in a font file), which receives special treatment in US law and is not subject to copyright in that jurisdiction. As far as I can see (but please note that I am not even in the US, never mind a legal scholar) the relevant US law is 37 CFR § 202.1 about “Material not subject to copyright” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/202.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/202.1). This enumerates several cases that are explicitly excluded from copyright protection. One is “typeface as typeface”, which was apparently interpreted as described above in a litigated case (Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer). An argument has certainly been made, though I can’t immediately find the original source, that this exclusion is justified because of the utilitarian nature of a typeface design: allowing one party to control all use of it would be against the public interest, because ultimately that principle could allow for all printed communication to become controlled. It seems to me that APIs fulfil a similar purpose. They are not useful in themselves, lacking a corresponding implementation. They are, however, an essential basis for standardisation, interoperability and communication between practitioners. Under 202.1(b) of the law cited above, another class of works excluded from copyright protection is “Ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing”. I wonder whether a similar argument about the utilitarian nature of APIs as a specification distinct from its implementation could be made based on that.

jacobr1 6y ago

But we are talking about copyright, not patents. So to stretch your analogy. Imagine I'm a door manufacturer, or maybe a manufacturer of tools for construction so that professionals can make their own doors. I create some kind of stencil that has the doorknob placement cut-out. And maybe a few variants with places for windows and such. The general idea of such a stencil might be patentable, even if the general standard dimensions are not. The tool is a unique idea (maybe). But we are talking about copywritten material. The specific stencil design, that you could photocopy is the thing in question. And that is one of several arguments Oracle made, that api interface is a stencil. I think I would agree the law supports that argument from what I know about it, copyright is pretty broad. But at the same time, I think that is perverse and we should change the law.

mamon 6y ago

Or compare APIs to the car interface: steering wheel + pedals. If one car manufacturer was able to copyright them, then what are other manufacturers supposed to do? The second one can use joystick for steering, and maybe a lever for braking and acceleration. The third one has to invent something even weirder. Everybody loses: manufacturers, because they can't easily create competing products, and users, because they have to re-learn driving every time they change car brand.