[kpU8efre7r]

Would this open the door for some schmucko to copyright push, pop, enqueue, dequeue, etc?

[trashface]

An even more problematic example:

https://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/String.h...

So...I guess this api signature for string concatenation is on the verge of being owned by oracle forever. Perhaps I can create a non-derived work by adding a few extra arguments.

[jmpeax]

I'd bet that isolated examples couldn't be copyrighted any more than a single sentence in a novel couldn't be copyrighted. Doesn't it have to do with the whole work?

[shakna]

The case is about APIs, not the whole work. By their very nature, all APIs are both:

1. Single sentence.

2. Usually obvious. In fact, just about every API definition in the above linked String method list is blatantly obvious, and many of the APIs look similar to ones in various other completely incompatible languages.

So even if you argue the copyrighted work is comprised of the whole set of APIs, it may be patent-able as an invention, but it does not seem reasonable to suggest it be protected by copyright.

[pacala]

Hopefully only the specific Java incantation. Other languages have different syntax, so arguably they are not Java.

    Java: public String concat(String str)

    Javascript: String.prototype.concat ( [ string1 [ , string2 [ , … ] ] ] )

    Python: def __add__(self, *args, **kwargs)

    C++: function <string> std::operator+ (string)

[edoceo]

Use vararg for parameters to pass to iconv

[nickthemagicman]

Just rename it : Konkat. Easy /s

[gpm]

The better question is would this case mean someone already has the copyright on push, pop, enqueue, dequeue? Someone originally came up with all those APIs, and they (or the people they were working for or otherwise sold it to) would would own any copyright.

(The answer is probably no, I'm sure a half decent lawyer would manage to distinguish that from this case since it is so simple).

[monocasa]

This case has the appeals court striking down de minimus claims as well. : /

[CamperBob2]

I wonder how those idiot judges on the appeals court would feel if a bunch of programmers with Sharpies ran rampant through their law books, altering the long-established order of things with essentially no knowledge of what they were doing. It's a shame the universe doesn't provide for karmic retribution at this level.

Downvote if you like, but there's no other way to describe the absence of de minimis exceptions besides "idiocy." These judges are essentially monkeys in a machine shop.

[jimnotgym]

Perhaps they are not idiots, they are just trying to apply laws written for books and music to software. That is not their fault, they don't get to make laws, only interpret them.

I think this is another case where the law makers have been rather slow to keep up. Copyright is not really working in this era.

[zelphirkalt]

> That is not their fault, they don't get to make laws, only interpret them.

Isn't that exactly what the parent of your post called:

> These judges are essentially monkeys in a machine shop.

Blindly trying to apply an unfitting law, because those are the instructions?

[chc]

The absence of de minimis exceptions is not that important because API copyrights are a terrible idea all on their own.

[wyldfire]

Those are too abstract as described. Could you copyright an implementation of those? Yes. And if someone did you shouldn't infringe on theirs you should write your own. But that's not new, you can find tons of different basic data structure implementations out there, with a variety of licenses.

[gpm]

Eh, that's nitpicking. "class Stack<T> { void push(t: T); T pop(void); }" is not too abstract, and has been written down many times.

[wyldfire]

Yes and no, I guess if that's what they meant then yes I was nitpicking but I took it literally (lots of folks confuse concepts between patents, copyrights and trademarks. Less common on HN but still happens. )