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

[Angelo McComis]

To me, it seems the jurors in the case need an easy to understand
comparison, because writing APIs, implementing APIs, and what can/should be
protected/protectable by copyright law is not clear.

I proffer that an API is not far unlike a camper or trailer that offers a
trailer hitch.  The common interface for implementing the trailer is to
haul it with a vehicle (could be any vehicle) that's able to offer the
proper trailer ball.  The trailer's lights are also able to be implemented
via a common wire harness, which allows the connecting vehicle to make
calls to (by way of passing or not passing voltage) the lighting on the
trailer.

Take this, and expand it, and you have a simple way for the courts to
understand what's at the heart of the case.

I don't believe you can offer a trailer hitch, and then come back and sue
the maker of the tow ball for implementing that interface.  On the other
hand, the design behind how the trailer is constructed, such that it has
structure, stability, and strength to be suitably towed by a single point,
yeah, sure - that could be a protected design.

My $0.02.



On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Rob Funk <rfunk at funknet.net> wrote:

> Rick Hornsby wrote:
> > I'm a little bit confused by the $9B Oracle-Google fight[1].
> > I don't understand how using an API is a copyright violation, which
> > makes me think I'm missing some salient point here.
>
> Simple: The legal arena mostly doesn't understand this stuff.
>
> https://motherboard.vice.com/read/in-google-v-oracle-the-nerds-are-getting-owned
>
> _______________________________________________
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.colug.net/pipermail/colug-432/attachments/20160513/e9da1778/attachment.html