Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] can you copyright an API?



On 04/25/2012 10:37 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Edward Ned Harvey <blu at nedharvey.com> wrote:
>>> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
>>> bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Tom Metro
>>>
>>> In any case, we're heading off on a tangent from the thread. I'm far
>>> less interested in whether Google prevails on the overall suit than in
>>> the question of whether APIs can be protected by copyright.
>> Even if an API is copyrightable, we've already concluded it's easily
>> circumventable.  They can't illegalize translating from one language to
>> another, and they can't illegalize designing a language to be easily
>> translatable to a specific other target language.  In other words, you can
>> easily script a trivial transliterate function that will translate.  I
>> suppose Oracle could prosecute anyone who wrote such a translator without
>> licensing the copyrighted API...
> Err, translations are derivative works (at least in the literary
> world) and the copyright holder for the original work controls them.
> I'm not sure the translation script would be a subject of copyright
> violation, but Google's implementation of their "new" API would seem
> to me to be a derivative work of Oracle's API.  I don't think APIs are
> (should be?) copyrightable, but I don't think your sleight of hand
> would work to get around the problem if they were.   Speaking of
> which, if APIs are copyrightable do K&R own the copyright on the API
> for the C standard library or does Stroustrup own it for C++?   That
> would mean that every implementer of those libraries might be subject
> to copyright violation suits.  That's why some people consider a
> ruling saying APIs are copyrightable would be a major change to the
> way people think about software and copyrights.
>
>> If an API is copyrightable, the above does not mean the copyright is
>> meaningless...  Just that in the future, it will have minimal impact.
>>
>> The main question of interest will be whether or not the API is patentable.
> As I understand it, even software patents have to do with actually
> "doing" something.   An API doesn't actually do anything, it is the
> underlying implementation that does.   If I could claim patent on an
> API, it would seem to me that I could claim your book describing my
> API violated my patent as well.  I wonder what that would do to all
> the authors of Windows programming books out there.
>
> In any case, I think it is Google's actual Dalvik VM that might be
> subject to Oracle's patents (and part of this lawsuit); but I don't
> think the API is relevant to paents.  And as far as patents go in this
> case, I believe that all but 2? of the patents that Oracle started
> with have either been tossed by the Patent Office (upon becoming aware
> of prior art) or Oracle decided they weren't going to claim during
> this case (perhaps their infringement case was too weak).   Even the
> two that they are moving forwarded with have been whittled down by the
> Patent Office by prior art.
>
> Frankly, this case seems a lot like the SCO/IBM case.   We started
> with lots of grandiose claims and even before the trial starts large
> chunks have already been tossed.
Certainly they started with grandiose claims, especially with damages.
The issue is not about copying code. The issue is about the
reimplementing of the API. Back a couple of decades ago, compiler
writers used to require a royalty on "derivative works". This lawsuit is
also not about using the jdk. The use of the jdk is on the developoment
system not the Android device. It is roughly the same issue as WINE.
WINE implements the Windows API on Linux. They do not use Microsoft
code. Google probably could have licensed the JVM from Sun (and later
Oracle) even though they wrote their own.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90 
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90





BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org