[pessimizer]

>there are perfectly legal ways to clone the backend service and construct an API that is basically identical.

>If there is a monopoly power on behalf of proprietary APIs, it's created by market inertia and NOT by a state-granted artificial legal monopoly.

Or it's created by the investment necessary to retool everything to work with a "basically identical" API which cannot be substantially identical. I wonder if they'll be a market for people that come up with synonyms so that companies offering an identical service with entirely different codebase can avoid duplicating copyrighted calls. Maybe we can download shims from torrent sites?

[print]

I'm not sure what you're getting at -- copying an API interface is allowed, because API interfaces are not copyrightable see Oracle v. Google.

[LesZedCB]

API: Application Program Interface.

There is nothing other than the interface of an API to copy. That's what it is.

However, the implementation is what copyright protects, so, honestly, I think this whole article is not very relevant.

[print]

Yes, my point is that "the API" as in the interface itself can be the copied, but "the API" (implementation) cannot. Clear? :)