4 ms·

Right, but I suspect those who would find advantage would be the incumbent market leaders in their respective fields. The truly disruptive startups, the innova

Right, but I suspect those who would find advantage would be the incumbent market leaders in their respective fields. The truly disruptive startups, the innovators, would be weighted down considerably by such legislation, since they might unknowingly replicate an obvious part of a copyrighted API. The situation would quickly spiral out of control. If that were the case, the copyright-ability of APIs might result in the stagnation of software development itself, in the absolute worst case, though I suspect, as I have previously stated, that people would get around that by relocating to more friendly legislative environments.

glesica 14y ago
I think this is the bigger risk. Copyrights are even more numerous than patents and are potentially much more difficult to avoid infringing. You could infringe an API in a totally different industry and never know it, and there are so many of them that checking first would be basically pointless. At least with patents you can do some reasonable due-diligence (e.g. when building an audio codec, check for audio processing patents). You're not in the clear just by doing so (obviously, look at all the lawsuits) but it's at least some protection. API copyrights could end up being much more deadly IP landmines.
- sohamsankaran 14y ago
  Add this to the fact that the U.S. legislature is considering making copyrights potentially infinite(edit: infinitely extendable) in length, and you have a recipe for total disaster.
  - grabeh 14y ago
    Do you have a source for that?
    - btilly 14y ago
      They can't make copyrights infinite. But the last several decades have shown that they can extend copyright terms indefinitely. And, thanks to Disney's lobbying, will do so every time that it looks like Steamboat Willie is going to become public domain. (That's the first film that Mickey Mouse was in.)
- Retric 14y ago
  Unlike patents, you can't accidentally infringe Copyright. You can have 3 photo's of a buss that look vary similar, but only 1 was infringing because it tried to recreate another picture.
  - MichaelGG 14y ago
    Referring to [1]? That's already a huge step worse than copyright, and just starts on the path to "Well look, I published an API to upload files with a progress callback. And you clearly wanted to do the same thing and even named it Upload, but you just moved the parameter orders around." 1: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/10515817552/uk-court-says-you-can-copyright-basic-idea-photograph.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/10515817552/uk-cou...
    - Retric 14y ago
      What I think your missing is that picture was as common as a the coke logo. If they where a random coffee shop somewhere the 'I have never seen that photo' defense would have worked just fine. Patent trolls work because they can lie in wait for people to 'infringe' but unpopular API's that few people use don't have the landmine effect. If you never saw them they don't exist.
      - MichaelGG 14y ago
        That wasn't quite my point. Copyright should cover the expression only. Right now, I could go write my own book that's clearly inspired by Star Wars or Harry Potter. This sets a precedent that even creating a _similar_ book, photo, or API is infringement. This directly goes against the idea of copyright: to generate more works for society.
        grabeh 14y ago
        The case is quite unique in some ways because the alleged infringer disclosed that they had intentionally instructed a designer to design around the original. Copyright, at least in the UK, has for a long time granted protection for copies which are not necessarily identical, but similar where they are a substantial reproduction of the original. Admittedly in the case above the line between protecting an idea and the expression was pushed towards the idea, however, as stated, the specific facts of the case (in the sense that it was a blatant attempt to mimic but not infringe the original) made it more likely that the judge would find infringement.
- daeken 14y ago
  Unknowingly violating copyright is like unknowingly shoplifting; there are cases where you will have incorrect knowledge about licenses or somesuch (or you'll put a piece of fruit in your bag and not pay for it), but it's an extreme edge case. The problem with patents is that if you and someone else arrive at the same solution and the other person patents it before you put your solution out there, you are in violation of their parent. There is no such analogue for copyright. You and I can write functionally identical code for a decade and never once violate each other's copyright.

glesica 14y ago

I think this is the bigger risk. Copyrights are even more numerous than patents and are potentially much more difficult to avoid infringing. You could infringe an API in a totally different industry and never know it, and there are so many of them that checking first would be basically pointless. At least with patents you can do some reasonable due-diligence (e.g. when building an audio codec, check for audio processing patents). You're not in the clear just by doing so (obviously, look at all the lawsuits) but it's at least some protection. API copyrights could end up being much more deadly IP landmines.

sohamsankaran 14y ago
Add this to the fact that the U.S. legislature is considering making copyrights potentially infinite(edit: infinitely extendable) in length, and you have a recipe for total disaster.
- grabeh 14y ago
  Do you have a source for that?
  - btilly 14y ago
    They can't make copyrights infinite. But the last several decades have shown that they can extend copyright terms indefinitely. And, thanks to Disney's lobbying, will do so every time that it looks like Steamboat Willie is going to become public domain. (That's the first film that Mickey Mouse was in.)
Retric 14y ago
Unlike patents, you can't accidentally infringe Copyright. You can have 3 photo's of a buss that look vary similar, but only 1 was infringing because it tried to recreate another picture.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  Referring to [1]? That's already a huge step worse than copyright, and just starts on the path to "Well look, I published an API to upload files with a progress callback. And you clearly wanted to do the same thing and even named it Upload, but you just moved the parameter orders around." 1: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/10515817552/uk-court-says-you-can-copyright-basic-idea-photograph.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/10515817552/uk-cou...
  - Retric 14y ago
    What I think your missing is that picture was as common as a the coke logo. If they where a random coffee shop somewhere the 'I have never seen that photo' defense would have worked just fine. Patent trolls work because they can lie in wait for people to 'infringe' but unpopular API's that few people use don't have the landmine effect. If you never saw them they don't exist.
    - MichaelGG 14y ago
      That wasn't quite my point. Copyright should cover the expression only. Right now, I could go write my own book that's clearly inspired by Star Wars or Harry Potter. This sets a precedent that even creating a _similar_ book, photo, or API is infringement. This directly goes against the idea of copyright: to generate more works for society.
      - grabeh 14y ago
        The case is quite unique in some ways because the alleged infringer disclosed that they had intentionally instructed a designer to design around the original. Copyright, at least in the UK, has for a long time granted protection for copies which are not necessarily identical, but similar where they are a substantial reproduction of the original. Admittedly in the case above the line between protecting an idea and the expression was pushed towards the idea, however, as stated, the specific facts of the case (in the sense that it was a blatant attempt to mimic but not infringe the original) made it more likely that the judge would find infringement.
daeken 14y ago
Unknowingly violating copyright is like unknowingly shoplifting; there are cases where you will have incorrect knowledge about licenses or somesuch (or you'll put a piece of fruit in your bag and not pay for it), but it's an extreme edge case. The problem with patents is that if you and someone else arrive at the same solution and the other person patents it before you put your solution out there, you are in violation of their parent. There is no such analogue for copyright. You and I can write functionally identical code for a decade and never once violate each other's copyright.