Posted on 05/12/2014 1:55:35 PM PDT by ShadowAce
Excuse me while I go patent and copyright some system calls....
/johnny
An API library is software. So it fits with copyrighting software so nothing wrong there. I just think there is a lot of software that’s copyrighted or part of an IP package that doesn’t do anything unique or non-intuitive.
What is an API? What is it an abbreviation for?
Application Program(mable) Interface. You see these two versions out there. And yes, it is software and patentable.
Maybe this?
“In computer programming, an application programming interface (API) specifies how some software components should interact with each other.
In addition to accessing databases or computer hardware, such as hard disk drives or video cards, an API can be used to ease the work of programming graphical user interface components. In practice, many times an API comes in the form of a library that includes specifications for routines, data structures, object classes, and variables. In some other cases, notably for SOAP and REST services, an API comes as just a specification of remote calls exposed to the API consumers.[1]
An API specification can take many forms, including an International Standard such as POSIX, vendor documentation such as the Microsoft Windows API, the libraries of a programming language, e.g., Standard Template Library in C++ or Java API. Web APIs are also a vital component of today’s web fabric. An API differs from an application binary interface (ABI) in that an API is source code based while an ABI is a binary interface. For instance POSIX is an API, while the Linux Standard Base is an ABI.[2]”
Source: Wikipedia
“An API library is software. So it fits with copyrighting software so nothing wrong there.”
Nope. An API is NOT software. An API is a specification, like the list of ingredients in a cake. A list of cake ingredients IS NOT copyrightable, though a specific, written recipe that lists the ingredients IS copyrightable.
Likewise, a software library that implements an API IS copyrightable.
So, ideas are not copyrightable, but implementations of ideas rendered in terms of media ARE copyrightable.
This is an insane ruling.
True. If software is subject to copyright, then an API should as well.
One thing that you're missing, however, is that copyright protects an expression from being copied, not any form of functionality. Ergo, it is perfectly okay for software not to do "anything unique or non-intuitive," or even work, to be copyrighted.
Further, a person who re-creates an API from scratch and without accessing the original API violates no copyright even if the code is 100% identical. That said, the likelihood of 20 lines of independently designed code being identical is highly remote.
Just, FYI, I am an IP attorney.
One could say the same of medicine, energy, farming, forestry, or any older sector of American industry that has been systematically stifled by government.
Software had a good run - it left government so baffled for nearly 50 years that it remained free to grow with little interference. But government wants the same cut it has been getting from older industries, and software is just too lucrative to continue to be left alone.
If we expect to stay employed, we had better start studying for our FCSE (Federally Certified Systems Engineer) exams. :)
If this ruling stands, Brian Kernighan SHOULD sue Oracle, Apple, and Microsnot for copying "int" and "float".
I get dibs on “;”!
I do understand the issue of an API being a standard, but also software. The standard becomes functional, and therefore not subject to copyright. The code that goes into the API can be subject to copyright, however.
There is an excellent analysis available - and one critical of Judge O’Malley.
I'm just a cook, man...
/johnny
...”So, there are still a few more years (and many more millions) to be thrown at this before there’s any real conclusion.”
Sometimes I think that’s why we get so many of these screwy rulings. Just lawyers(judges) making work for more lawyers. Gotta keep the BAR cash flow going dontchaknow.
I gotta give the first judge credit though. He actually took the time to learn to program so he could understand the issue before making a ruling.
To put it simply, an API is a set of instructions a software company will put out for a piece of software, that delineates how a 3rd-party programmer can write applications that then interface with the original piece of software.
hmmm...copyright of an *implementation* of an API is ok, but the API is just the declared interface to the software component. This has been ruled upon in the past, otherwise software like WINE (on Linux) would be in trouble. It *implements* the Windows API so Windows software can run on Linux but has no Windows code. Microsoft makes the API’s public information so people can right application software for it. Anybody can re-implement the API...and I’m a Software Architect that works with open source software and frequently have to deal with legal issues (GPLv2/3, Apache, etc.).
“hmmm...copyright of an *implementation* of an API is ok, but the API is just the declared interface to the software component.”
That sums it up.
Thank you for your clear exposition. It’s apparently a fairly high-level interface specification for designers of associated apps to use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.