2 ms·

So to be fair here, there were two issues at play: 1. Oracle's patents that Google supposedly violated. (And thank God most of those stupid patents were actual

So to be fair here, there were two issues at play: 1. Oracle's patents that Google supposedly violated. (And thank God most of those stupid patents were actually invalidated) 2. Oracle's copyright on its APIs that Google also supposedly violated. The API discussion involved the copyright part of the case, and here the question "What is an API" does become central, especially considering that the judge decided in the end that APIs are not copyrightable - when such a decision is made it'd better be crystal clear what is meant by an "API"

silentmars 14y ago
Admittedly, the API example was not totally on point since it was dealing with copyright. However it illuminated the problem with lawyers even under the best of circumstances not understanding software and programming. I agree that the question of "What is an API" was quite important for good reasons in that case. What was gravely concerning to me was that the lawyers from neither side had a clear idea of the answer, despite the fact that had the best possible set of circumstances for lawyers to get that kind of understanding. Specifically, their clients gave them access to some of the smartest people in the world, they had virtually unlimited time and money, and the lawyers themselves are some of the best in the country and were experienced in complex litigation with technical companies. Extend this kind of conceptual ignorance to the lawyers who are arguing about and making policy on software patents, and it's both terrifying and infuriating.