[Discuss] can you copyright an API?

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

On 04/25/2012 09:30 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
> Jerry Feldman wrote:
>> But, since Oracle is claiming the API is patented...
> I haven't read the groklaw coverage, but I haven't seen that claimed
> elsewhere.
>
>
> Bill Bogstad wrote:
>> Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>>> The main question of interest will be whether or not the API is patentable.
>> As I understand it, even software patents have to do with actually
>> "doing" something.   An API doesn't actually do anything, it is the
>> underlying implementation that does.   If I could claim patent on an
>> API, it would seem to me that I could claim your book describing my
>> API violated my patent as well.
>>
>> In any case, I think it is Google's actual Dalvik VM that might be
>> subject to Oracle's patents (and part of this lawsuit); but I don't
>> think the API is relevant to patents. 
> This matches my understanding.
>
>
> Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> Even if an API is copyrightable, we've already concluded it's easily
>> circumventable.
> Renaming the functions largely defeats the point to using an existing
> API. If you are going to do that, you'd be better off playing it safe
> and just do a "clean room" design of your own API.
>
>
> Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> Tom Metro wrote:
>>> Sun granted a royalty-free license to use the applicable patents to 
>>> everyone, regardless of whether they are using OpenJDK or not. 
>>  
>> Question: Do you think Google is going to be permitted to sell licenses 
>> of something Sun patented, when Sun conditioned the free use upon the 
>> GPL and Sun sells it under some other license?   No way man.  
> Right, seems unlikely, but...
>
>
>> If Sun granted royalty-free license to use and distribute the
>> (patented) application under the terms of GPL, then the royalty-free
>> (patent) license would be conditioned on the continued compliance to
>> GPL by whoever received it.
> Sounds logical, but where is the document that stipulates that. (GPLv2
> by itself doesn't.)
>
> This is not a case of a license granted to only a few parties,
> negotiated behind closed doors. Instead it is a "drive by" license where
> any visitor to the OpenJDK site can download the JDK and be governed by
> the legal documents provided on that site and bundled with the code.
If you go back to SCO vs. IBM, it was a contracts case where SCO was
charging that IBM violated the contract it had as well as the perpetual
license it signed with AT&T. SCO is trying to reopen and have burned
through a number of judges (partially because one of the lead attorneys
for SCO is Brent Hatch, Orin Hatch's son)>

Tthe API is the heart of the Oracle vs Google case. I have not seen any
area where the Dalvik JVM is being accused of using Oracle code.

-- 
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