[vsskanth]

Can interoperability and data portability still be legislatively mandated if APIs were ruled copyrightable in the Supreme Court (Oracle vs Google) ?

Can monopolies go further and claim their user graph and user data is also under copyright ?

[chabad360]

Sure, the bill would need to include a clause that specifies that the API must not be copyrighted, or something to that effect.

[nobody9999]

>Sure, the bill would need to include a clause that specifies that the API must not be copyrighted, or something to that effect.

I don't believe that would be an issue, since Federal government works are not entitled to copyright and are in the public domain[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...

[p_l]

But the interoperability API would be created by private entities, not Federal government works, and AFAIK even federal-but-subcontracted work is copyrightable.

[nobody9999]

>But the interoperability API would be created by private entities,

That's true. I was wrong.

However, the interoperability specs will be developed by NIST as specified in Section 6(c):

"(c) Technical standards.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall develop and publish model technical standards by which to make interoperable popular classes of communications or information services, including—

(1) online messaging;

(2) multimedia sharing; and

(3) social networking."

Those standards certainly can't be copyrighted, and as such, it's still not really an issue.

[CKN23-ARIN]

NIST. Hmm. Isn't this the IETF's job?

[nobody9999]

> NIST. Hmm. Isn't this the IETF's job?

It absolutely is. In fact, in the email I sent to my senators/representative (included in another comment[0] in this discussion), I write:

"I'd further urge you to introduce amendments to this bill to accomplish the following:

[...]

2. In addition to tasking the National Institute for Standards and Technology with creating the protocols and interfaces required to implement this bill, invite the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to participate as well. The IETF (https://ietf.org/about/ ) are the people who have, for more than 30 years, been developing, documenting and implementing the technical standards that have made the Internet the economic and cultural dynamo it is today."

[0] Is it possible to reference a specific comment via URL that is a reply to someone else's comment? Not sure how to do that.

[xg15]

As the courts only interpret the existing law, couldn't the bill simply restrict the copyright on APIs enough to avoid those kind of contradictions?

[amelius]

Methods of communication should (imho) never be copyrightable. That would include APIs, filesystems, codecs, programming languages, and possibly fonts.

[amelius]

Why would FAANG write the APIs when they can be good old RFCs?

[treis]

Copying APIs for interoperability is protected fair use.

[ebcode]

It’s possible that the Supreme Court will decide this in the negative. https://www.zdnet.com/article/supreme-court-takes-on-google-...

[munfred]

Those are good questions. My take is that it would be similar in spirit to the way government can act to prevent price gouging with drug patents. Notice that platforms are allowed to charge and regulate access to the API, but it has to be "reasonable". Here is what is stated on section 4 on interoperability:

------------

SEC. 4. INTEROPERABILITY.

(a) General Duty Of Large Communications Platform Providers.—A large communications platform provider shall, for each large communications platform it operates, maintain a set of transparent, third-party-accessible interfaces (including application programming interfaces) to facilitate and maintain technically compatible, interoperable communications with a user of a competing communications provider.

(b) General Duty Of Competing Communications Providers.—A competing communications provider that accesses an interoperability interface of a large communications platform provider shall reasonably secure any user data it acquires, processes, or transmits.

(c) Interoperability Obligations For Large Communications Platform Providers.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In order to achieve interoperability under subsection (a), a large communications platform provider shall fulfill the duties under paragraphs (2) through (6) of this subsection.

(2) NON-DISCRIMINATION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—A large communications platform provider shall facilitate and maintain interoperability with competing communications services for each of its large communications platforms through an interoperability interface, based on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms.

(B) REASONABLE THRESHOLDS, ACCESS STANDARDS, AND FEES.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—A large communications platform provider may establish reasonable thresholds related to the frequency, nature, and volume of requests by a competing communications provider to access resources maintained by the large communications platform provider, beyond which the large communications platform provider may assess a reasonable fee for such access.

(ii) USAGE EXPECTATIONS.—A large communications platform provider may establish fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory usage expectations to govern access by competing communications providers, including fees or penalties for providers that exceed those usage expectations.

(iii) LIMITATION ON FEES AND USAGE EXPECTATIONS.—Any fees, penalties, or usage expectations assessed under clauses (i) and (ii) shall be reasonably proportional to the cost, complexity, and risk to the large communications platform provider of providing such access.

(iv) NOTICE.—A large communications platform provider shall provide public notice of any fees, penalties, or usage expectations that may be established under clauses (i) and (ii), including reasonable advance notice of any changes.

(v) SECURITY AND PRIVACY STANDARDS.—A large communications platform provider shall, consistent with industry best practices, set privacy and security standards for access by competing communications services to the extent reasonably necessary to address a threat to the large communications platform or user data, and shall report any suspected violations of those standards to the Commission.

(C) PROHIBITED CHANGES TO INTERFACES.—A change to an interoperability interface or terms of use made with the purpose, or substantial effect, of unreasonably denying access or undermining interoperability for competing communications services shall be considered a violation of the duty under subparagraph (A) to facilitate and maintain interoperability based on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms.

(3) FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE.—A large communications platform provider that maintains interoperability between its own large communications platform and other products, services, or affiliated offerings of such provider shall offer a functionally equivalent version of that interface to competing communications services.

(4) INTERFACE INFORMATION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a large communications platform provider shall disclose to competing communications providers complete and accurate documentation describing access to the interoperability interface required under this section.

(B) CONTENTS.—The documentation required under subparagraph (A)—

(i) is limited to interface documentation necessary to achieve development and operation of interoperable products and services; and

(ii) does not require the disclosure of the source code of a large communications platform.

(5) NOTICE OF CHANGES.—A large communications platform provider shall provide reasonable advance notice to a competing communications provider, which may be provided through public notice, of any change to an interoperability interface maintained by the large communications platform provider that will affect the interoperability of a competing communications service.

(6) NON-COMMERCIALIZATION BY A LARGE COMMUNICATIONS PLATFORM PROVIDER.—A large communications platform provider may not collect, use, or share user data obtained from a competing communications service through the interoperability interface except for the purposes of safeguarding the privacy and security of such information or maintaining interoperability of services.

(d) Non-Commercialization By A Competing Communications Provider.—A competing communications provider that accesses an interoperability interface may not collect, use, or share user data obtained from a large communications platform provider through the interoperability interface except for the purposes of safeguarding the privacy and security of such information or maintaining interoperability of services.

(e) Exemption For Certain Services.—The obligations under this section shall not apply to a product or service by which a large communications platform provider does not generate any income or other compensation, directly or indirectly, from collecting, using, or sharing user data.

[vsskanth]

So Sec.4.2.B.iii says the large communication providers are allowed to charge a fee to access the network but doesn't say anything about the same charges being applicable to themselves. Wouldn't this create a competitive advantage to the larger network ?

Also, it seems awfully similar to the treatment for cellular communication providers. What are the differences here ? Or would Verizon/ATT be rolled into this since the statute just mentions large communications provider ?