SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the chickens-coming-home-to-roost dept.
Google has appealed its case with Oracle to the Supreme Court of the United States over a dispute about whether a java API may be copyrighted.
The ARS Technica Story: Google asks Supreme Court to overrule disastrous ruling on API copyrights.
The consensus among the comments on ARS seem to be that this will result in a substantial amount of litigation. I'm forced to ask whether this future litigation should have happened already, and that this paradigm shift is just a matter of catching up to the effects of a previous bad ruling Lotus v. Borland from the early 1990s.
I get that it is going to cause a lot of code refactoring. But won't that also create a lot of new products? The other thing to consider is that communications protocols are essentially API specifications. Historically intellectual property protection for protocols is very weak. Some (myself at least) would attribute the effectiveness of the EEE business tactic to the inability to defend protocol compatibility within the legal framework provided by the USPTO and Copyright Office.
Which is to say that an Oracle victory may expand the scope of FOSS licensing, giving FOSS developers more say over how their products are used. This would reduce barrier to entry in new communications product markets that are based on FOSS, and give more power to startups.
Yes it is going to be expensive for established players if Oracle wins. Most people seem to agree with that. That is the price of operating on a bad premise. Does it matter whether responsibility for the premise resides with a judge or a CEO? Aren't there also some upsides if Oracle wins? What are the trade offs?
Of course the whole thing could be a put on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 30 2019, @08:41AM (14 children)
Stupid questions beget really stupid answers.
The correct answer to this one is "no", followed by "damn no!"
Do not people know what a API is? Is it an Interface, a Public interface, that is Authorized. To copyright this would be to attempt to deny any one of these three things. I am shocked, (well, not so much after the mass rejection of insightful aristarchus submissions) that a Fallacious Article like this could eve make it to the front page. Proud Boy, but Not Too Bright Boys, strike again?
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @09:08AM (1 child)
Well then, why didn't YOU write the article so it would never see the light of day?
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 30 2019, @09:12AM
I did. You didn't see it? In the light of day? Oh, dear!
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday January 30 2019, @11:18AM
I don't authorize you to implement "void foo( void );"
Note that there is quite a lot more to an API than just a header file prototype; there is also - hopefully - between the caller and callee: for example, my above API holds that calling it will panic the kernel, take your daughter's virginity then feed your hamster. None of these are implied by its prototype.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 30 2019, @11:29AM (6 children)
The issue here is they're trying to copyright the names of the API calls so that someone can't clean-room up their own version of $whatever that otherwise violates neither copyright nor patents.
Now, am I looking at this wrong or could this be a very unfortunate thing for wine if the ruling stands?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday January 30 2019, @11:56AM (4 children)
[Citation needed]
The way I read [forbes.com], names are not copyrightable. One can write a book having Harry Potter as a character name, as long as the character and setup doesn't bear any substantial resemblance to JKRowlings novels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Wednesday January 30 2019, @12:23PM (2 children)
Probably, you'd have to be careful over trademarks to avoid confusion. And that's a good thing - it protects someone who's looking to buy your book. If you released "Harry Potter the boy wizzard", or even "The tale of middle aged Harry Potter", it would be reasonable for a purchaser to think this was an authorised continuation of the Harry Potter world.
If you want to make your own version of Harry Potter, do so, and let it stand on it's feet. Seth McFarlane did it with Orvile (and trek), he didn't need to call the ship "Enterprise", or the captain "Kirk"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:12PM (1 child)
That's trademark law not copyright law.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 31 2019, @01:36PM
Yes, hence me saying "you'd have to be careful over trademarks"
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:11PM
The initial judge taught himself java and agreed with you though not for that reason. The subsequent appeals courts did not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @03:50PM
Well, I'm not a oenophile, but I don't think this will affect wine in any way. ;-)
(Score: 5, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday January 30 2019, @11:43AM (2 children)
All good and dandy, except:
(still grinning) So, you see, you are acronymically wrong. But I must admit, nobody surpassed you in the elegance in being wrong on purpose, magister, your style is the supremerest!
---
** All cited works belong to their authors. Their partial reproduction here was fully attributed and was made under the "fair use" doctrine.
So, esteemed author, not a cent from me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 30 2019, @11:56PM
Guilty as charged. Knew I would be caught, just didn't think it would be c0lo that would do the catching. Seems better this way.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:38PM
A Punishable Interface?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @05:17PM
The answer should be yes*.
*With conditions.
Because corporations fucked up what was supposed to be friendly use among people.
corporations are not people, but they will try to fuck people. Their use of APIs in truly novel profit seeking ways needs to be curbed, and they will not do so if it erodes their revenue--especially if publically owned, and then they will blame it on needing shareholder value or something like that (despite being a dick not also being a legal requirement).
I am totally fine with taking away perks and conveniences from the little person in order to majorly shaft the guy that is beating the little person with it.
Then, with the *conditions, let the little person go back to legally using the APIs as nature intended.
Nobel made a peace prize because of what happened with his good intention inventions. There will never be an API prize from any of those companies, thanking people for releasing stuff open source so that they can exploit it.