[Discuss] can you copyright an API?

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

On 04/23/2012 08:58 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
>> bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Tom Metro
>>
>> Mostly is seems this is coming down to the issue of whether you can
>> patent an API - the names of classes, methods, and their arguments.
> Not patent an API.  Copyright the API.  Which Sun did, but Google doesn't
> feel is legal to do.
>
> I loves me some android, so I don't want to see any harm come to it, but in
> this case, I think google f**ked up.  There were lots of ways they could
> have avoided all this mess... For one, they could have started with the GPL
> openjdk.  Even if they threw out and rewrote 99% of the code in there, as
> long as it started with code that Sun released under GPL, and they continue
> to develop all their modifications under GPL, then oracle wouldn't have a
> case against google...  But google didn't decide to do that.  
>
> For two, why java?  If you're going to the effort of writing the whole
> language from scratch, why not rename the classes and stuff, so you're
> basically copying an existing language, "inspired by" some language, but not
> really copying it?  Actually, I rather hope that google is thinking about
> this, and I rather hope they're able to use this reverse-logic as the basis
> of part of their argument.  By merely substituting different names for
> classes & methods, they could avoid the problem...  Which means...  Yes you
> can copy an API as long as you transliterate words...  Which is ridiculous.
>
> Well, unfortunately, this is copyright law, not patent law.  Which means
> using the same name is the problem.  By simply substituting a different
> word, you're not infringing on copyright...  
>
> It would be a very different case, if the API were patented.
>
> And, exactly as you say, I have some concerns about what implications this
> may have for the likes of mono.  As I understand, originally .Net is/was a
> commercial product, that MS released open source (or the compiler) but the
> open source version isn't/wasn't as good as the commercial version, in terms
> of performance / optimization...  Basically MS was trying to make open
> source look bad by comparison.  And then mono reverse engineered it, threw
> it all out except the API, reimplemented it all, to be competitive with the
> commercial offering.  But I don't know if they started from their own
> codebase (under the same or different license terms from what MS
> released)...  Or if they started from the open source MS released and then
> threw away a lot of it...  I don't know...
>

Google wrote their own JVM (Dalvik). So, what they are doing is
implementing the API rather than using it. I think the remaining two
patents don't amount to too much. Oracle's attorneys are Boise Schiller,
the same firm that represents SCO.(and still is asserting their lawsuit
agains IBM)

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90 
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90