> I'd argue that the functional part of all APIs is nearly identical and that the creative part is what differentiates them.
You misunderstand.
It's not that functional things are covered by patents, "creative" things are covered by copyright. First, functional things can of course be creative; that's in the very definition of invention. Second, copyright is limited by law to the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
US law is very clear about this:
> In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Source code is indisputably copyrightable, but the question of law is if the functional aspect of an API, the way you interoperate with it, is protected by copyright. I believe Judge Alsup decided correctly that an API is a "system or method of operation", avoiding "the danger of conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be conferred only by patent". I'm hopeful that the other circuit courts will agree.
You misunderstand.
It's not that functional things are covered by patents, "creative" things are covered by copyright. First, functional things can of course be creative; that's in the very definition of invention. Second, copyright is limited by law to the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
US law is very clear about this:
> In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Source code is indisputably copyrightable, but the question of law is if the functional aspect of an API, the way you interoperate with it, is protected by copyright. I believe Judge Alsup decided correctly that an API is a "system or method of operation", avoiding "the danger of conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be conferred only by patent". I'm hopeful that the other circuit courts will agree.