|
|
|
|
|
|
by zucker42
2400 days ago
|
|
|
> At the time when the API is created, there is creative expression as to what the API should look like. At the time a recipe is created there is creative expression as to what ingredients will be in the recipe. Creativity/originality is a necessary but insufficient condition for copyright. > According to the 9th Circuit opinion, for the purpose of whether an API is copyrightable, interoperability (with client programs) does not factor in. I disagree with the 9th circuit here. To be clear, my argument is not that because copying is necessary for interoperability, APIs are not copyrightable. Rather, the argument is that because only one API (including SSO) fits any given purpose and because it is not functional in itself, the API is closer to an "idea", a "system", or a "method of operation" rather than a "literary work" under the Copyright Act section 102. A data structure with enqueue, dequeue, and size operations is an idea, not a concrete expression of that idea. Plus I believe if the Supreme Court upsets 50 years of practice in the industry, they are essentially legislating. |
|
|
> At the time a recipe is created there is creative expression as to what ingredients will be in the recipe. Creativity/originality is a necessary but insufficient condition for copyright.
To use the recipe analogy, just as the functionality the API necessarily must provide are uncopyrightable, so a list of ingredients is uncopyrightable.
But once someone organizes their ingredients list; e.g. according to the first time they must be used in the recipe, that organization is copyrightable just as the hierachical organization (SSO) of Java's standard library is copyrightable.
> Rather, the argument is that because only one API (including SSO) fits any given purpose and because it is not functional in itself, the API is closer to an "idea", a "system", or a "method of operation" rather than a "literary work" under the Copyright Act section 102.
The Fed Cir. cites case law suggesting that the 9th, 10th, and 3rd, among others, found that just because something is a "method of operation" does not mean that they are uncopyrightable.
> A data structure with enqueue, dequeue, and size operations is an idea, not a concrete expression of that idea.
For a data structure with enqueue, dequeue, and size, there aren't really enough creative choices choices that can be made. The Java API is different; e.g. as the CAFC points out, their API for dates and timezones are organized very differently from iOS's, and there is sufficient creative choice there.
> Plus I believe if the Supreme Court upsets 50 years of practice in the industry, they are essentially legislating.
With regard to the effect on the software industry, it may be less than you think. For general cases a competitor may be able to provide a competitor2us.sh to convert uses of a competitor API to a functionally equivalent API.
====
For reference these are the Fed Cir opinions
deciding copyrightability: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=151970920513696...
deciding fair use: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107451649356761...