[colug-432] copyright ...an API?

[Roberto C. Sánchez]

Except that by that logic, it would be illegal for me to develop, for
example, a valve cover gasket for GM trucks and then sell it (assuming
the design was not some publically available licensed design).

If they came up with the interface and could copyright it such that I
can't come along and develop something that uses the same interface,
they would be shutting out competition.  Of course, if they used some
sort of trade secret that I could not figure out, that would be my
problem.  But the development of a form-fit-function replacement
component has been something that was decided by the courts long ago.

The problem here is that this is further evidence that anytime you add
"over the Internet" or "on a computer/mobile device" as a suffix to
anything, the court system loses its collective mind.

I will be interested to see how the court rules because it could
certainly have far reaching impacts across the entire tech landscape.

Regards,

-Roberto

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 07:25:55PM -0400, Jeff Frontz wrote:
>    On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Rick Hornsby
>    <[1]richardjhornsby at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>      how can you then turn around and sue me for using the API exposed by
>      your library/gem/module? 
> 
>    Are they suing for use of the API or for implementation of the API
>    [infrastructure]?  The latter would seem to potentially be covered by
>    copyright.
> 
> References
> 
>    Visible links
>    1. mailto:richardjhornsby at gmail.com

> _______________________________________________
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432


-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com