3 ms·

From the Baker opinion: "The conclusion to which we have come is, that blank account-books are not the subject of copyright; and that the mere copyright of Sel

From the Baker opinion: "The conclusion to which we have come is, that blank account-books are not the subject of copyright; and that the mere copyright of Selden's book did not confer upon him the exclusive right to make and use account-books, ruled and arranged as designated by him and described and illustrated in said book." [1] I believe based on this reasoning, copying APIs or copying code is a distinction without a difference, so long as it's in the context of calling library functions. [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/

galaxyLogic 6y ago
Are you saying code which calls library functions should not be copyrightable? The Baker opinion can of course be used as argument pro-Google. But it is also just an "opinion". Each case must be decided on its own. I believe there is a big difference between scale and structural complexity with the (inter-connected) Java API and some text-book examples of accounting layouts. At some point quantity becomes quality.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- HotHotLava 6y ago
  I believe he is saying, and I would tend to agree, that it does not matter if Google literally copy/pasted the Java header files or if they had merely copied the API (ie. the same structure, sequence and organization) in a different language; for example by creating a Go package having exactly the same package structure and providing the same functions as the Java standard library. In both cases, they would have "copied" the API and both seem to me to be exactly the same case as in Baker/Selden.
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    Baker case subject-matter was "... certain forms or banks, consisting of ruled lines, and headings, illustrating the system and showing how it is to be used and carried out in practice". So that case was about illustrating and explaining a method of doing accounting. There was no textual matter copied. In Oracle vs. Google I believe the source-code of the APIs was copied. Even if one would consider a way to do accounting an "API" an explanation and illustration of an API is not the same as the "API". Explaining or illustrating a "structure" is not the same as copying that structure. Note that copyright applies to actual "works of art", not to abstract "methods". An API (as referred to in this case) is not an explanation of a way of doing things but an actual constructed artifact, source-code. Think about books. Their content is copyrighted. You can not copy their content. But nothing prevents you from explaining and "illustrating" the content of a book, as long as you don't copy significant portions of the structure and ordering of its verbatim words.

galaxyLogic 6y ago

Are you saying code which calls library functions should not be copyrightable? The Baker opinion can of course be used as argument pro-Google. But it is also just an "opinion". Each case must be decided on its own. I believe there is a big difference between scale and structural complexity with the (inter-connected) Java API and some text-book examples of accounting layouts. At some point quantity becomes quality.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
HotHotLava 6y ago
I believe he is saying, and I would tend to agree, that it does not matter if Google literally copy/pasted the Java header files or if they had merely copied the API (ie. the same structure, sequence and organization) in a different language; for example by creating a Go package having exactly the same package structure and providing the same functions as the Java standard library. In both cases, they would have "copied" the API and both seem to me to be exactly the same case as in Baker/Selden.
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  Baker case subject-matter was "... certain forms or banks, consisting of ruled lines, and headings, illustrating the system and showing how it is to be used and carried out in practice". So that case was about illustrating and explaining a method of doing accounting. There was no textual matter copied. In Oracle vs. Google I believe the source-code of the APIs was copied. Even if one would consider a way to do accounting an "API" an explanation and illustration of an API is not the same as the "API". Explaining or illustrating a "structure" is not the same as copying that structure. Note that copyright applies to actual "works of art", not to abstract "methods". An API (as referred to in this case) is not an explanation of a way of doing things but an actual constructed artifact, source-code. Think about books. Their content is copyrighted. You can not copy their content. But nothing prevents you from explaining and "illustrating" the content of a book, as long as you don't copy significant portions of the structure and ordering of its verbatim words.