[rayiner]

Walking is a method of operation. A video of someone walking, or a story about someone walking is a tangible description, not the method of operation itself.

The concept of a function with the name cupcake that takes an integer and returns an integer is different than the description "int cupcake(int x)." The interoperability aspect is a red herring--there is no right to interoperate.

[hurin]

> Walking is a method of operation.

That's not the way most people are using the term, if you are going to use it differently from everyone else, you should clarify the meaning of your usage of the term.

> The concept of a function...is different than the description...

I would say that's either not true or entirely non-obvious, because to establish that the concept is what is being described in the later case is you had to provide some form of description in the previous case, in this case:

  > a function with the name cupcake that takes an integer and returns an   integer

happens to be the common-english equivalent for

  > int cupcake(int x)

The primary difference being that one is valid as an English-sentence and one is valid as a declaration in c, it's not altogether clear why you consider the common-english-expression as having some kind of special precedence, or how such an example helps us establish the difference between a concept and a description of a concept (even supposing such a duality does exist).

> The interoperability aspect is a red herring--there is no right to interoperate.

Not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the Supreme court indeed has and at times does consider the effect on the common good from a particular interpretation of a law in their decision making.

[rayiner]

> That's not the way most people are using the term, if you are going to use it differently from everyone else, you should clarify the meaning of your usage of the term.

How do people use the term "method of operation?" I'm trying to draw your attention to the distinction between the abstract process of walking (moving your legs in a particular way), and concrete descriptions of that method.

> I would say that's either not true or entirely non-obvious, because to establish that the concept is what is being described in the later case is you had to provide some form of description in the previous case, in this case:

Sure, any abstract concept cannot be discussed by humans without reducing it to a written or spoken description. But that does not mean that the concept and the description are the same thing.

> happens to be the common-english equivalent for

Or "fn cupcake(x: i32) -> i32" or "function cupcake(x: integer) : integer;" etc. There are many different concrete descriptions of the abstract concept of a function taking an integer and returning an integer.

[bcg1]

I think we are actually in agreement here... it seems as if you consider "API" to mean the documentation of the function, while I am considering it to be the actual compiled Java bytecode (which is not a description of the function, it actually is the "tangible" function)

If the copyrightable work is the description of the API... then I would argue that simply writing "int cupcake(int x)" is not expressive in a way that can be copyrighted, since it is really the only precise way of describing the bytecode. However any extra information (such as Javadoc comments or other documentation) could definitely be expression.