4 ms·

I think the implications of this case are huge. Apart from having the non-copyrightability of APIs reaffirmed (hugely important in itself), we're now seeing th

by zmmmmm 14y ago

I think the implications of this case are huge. Apart from having the non-copyrightability of APIs reaffirmed (hugely important in itself), we're now seeing the whole general broadside of the intellectual property armageddon largely fizzing out. We have huge tech giants throwing whole rafts of patents at each other and seeing time and time again 95% of them dismissed and the remainder get trivially worked around. Hopefully this starts to change the mentality into one where these companies realize that patents are fairly worthless protection for trivial ideas in the first place and the only way to truly protect yourself is to actually out-innovate and be one step ahead of where the competition is.

roguecoder 14y ago
The problem is that threatening to throw those patents at small companies has proven, and will probably continue, to be effective. It doesn't matter whether or not they effectively protect ideas when their true value lies in raising barriers to competition.
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  True, but I think the effect will even trickle down to smaller cases. That is the benefit of having a clear precedent set. For example when Big Co. now tries to sue Small Co. for implementing their API Small Co. will be able to stand up with much more confidence and tell them to go away. Even if that could have been interpreted from previous legal doctrine, having such a clear and and recent statement on it will bolster anybody in that situation to defend themselves instead of caving.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    It's not a lack of courage that keeps small companies from defending themselves, it's a lack of money.
    - zmmmmm 14y ago
      Well, I would argue a clear precedent dramatically lowers the cost of defending yourself as well. Instead of a team of lawyers to finesse obscure complicated points and amassing huge quantities of research and evidence it just comes down to a simple well established point of law: the stuff is not copyrightable (I'd agree doesn't help so much with patents, which aren't affected by precedent in this case).

by zmmmmm 14y ago

roguecoder 14y ago

The problem is that threatening to throw those patents at small companies has proven, and will probably continue, to be effective. It doesn't matter whether or not they effectively protect ideas when their true value lies in raising barriers to competition.

zmmmmm 14y ago
True, but I think the effect will even trickle down to smaller cases. That is the benefit of having a clear precedent set. For example when Big Co. now tries to sue Small Co. for implementing their API Small Co. will be able to stand up with much more confidence and tell them to go away. Even if that could have been interpreted from previous legal doctrine, having such a clear and and recent statement on it will bolster anybody in that situation to defend themselves instead of caving.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  It's not a lack of courage that keeps small companies from defending themselves, it's a lack of money.
  - zmmmmm 14y ago
    Well, I would argue a clear precedent dramatically lowers the cost of defending yourself as well. Instead of a team of lawyers to finesse obscure complicated points and amassing huge quantities of research and evidence it just comes down to a simple well established point of law: the stuff is not copyrightable (I'd agree doesn't help so much with patents, which aren't affected by precedent in this case).