3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your point about the difference between the API code (where the names are mangled and meaningless) and the API design. Surely the API

I'm not sure I understand your point about the difference between the API code (where the names are mangled and meaningless) and the API design. Surely the API code is irrelevant here because it is not the part that humans interact with? In this case the naming is an important factor, as that is the competitive advantage leveraged by Google in copying Oracle's Java API. They were able to tap into a developer resource who was familiar with the style, naming and conventions of Java The API is the interface between the human and the code, and so copying a familiar interface design can be an advantage when building a platform

andrewjl 6y ago
> difference between the API code (where the names are mangled and meaningless) and the API design. API Code = header file or interface files or source code artifacts you need to include in order to make use of the system underlying the API. API design = a behavioral specification which the system represented by the API implements > In this case the naming is an important factor, as that is the competitive advantage leveraged by Google in copying Oracle's Java API. My point is it's an important factor in the design specification, not the code. This makes it an invention. Inventions cannot be copyrighted per Baker; they can however be patented. > They were able to tap into a developer resource who was familiar with the style, naming and conventions of Java The Baker case specifically addresses this point by saying embodied practices cannot be copyrighted. Java isn't a book, it's an invention so the proper avenue for protection is a patent and not copyright. > The API is the interface between the human and the code, and so copying a familiar interface design can be an advantage when building a platform Again this would be arguable as a patent infringement, but here we are discussing copyright and not patents. What you're describing applies to design patents IMO. [IANAL]
- interpol_p 6y ago
  Thank you for the details! I think I understand what you mean now

andrewjl 6y ago

> difference between the API code (where the names are mangled and meaningless) and the API design. API Code = header file or interface files or source code artifacts you need to include in order to make use of the system underlying the API. API design = a behavioral specification which the system represented by the API implements > In this case the naming is an important factor, as that is the competitive advantage leveraged by Google in copying Oracle's Java API. My point is it's an important factor in the design specification, not the code. This makes it an invention. Inventions cannot be copyrighted per Baker; they can however be patented. > They were able to tap into a developer resource who was familiar with the style, naming and conventions of Java The Baker case specifically addresses this point by saying embodied practices cannot be copyrighted. Java isn't a book, it's an invention so the proper avenue for protection is a patent and not copyright. > The API is the interface between the human and the code, and so copying a familiar interface design can be an advantage when building a platform Again this would be arguable as a patent infringement, but here we are discussing copyright and not patents. What you're describing applies to design patents IMO. [IANAL]

interpol_p 6y ago
Thank you for the details! I think I understand what you mean now