You guys keep wanting to pretend that declaring code isn't literal code, that it's magic fairy dust instead of something extremely complex and creative that can be copied.
Because I write it every day and I know that the method declarations pale into insignificance compared to the complexity and creativity of implementing the actual method
Quote:
Guys like you want to make it easy for huge companies like Google to hijack the copyrighted achievements of competitors. You would make it easy for the Googles and Microsofts to ripoff any API innovations from upstarts and independent developers
Innovations can be granted patents. We're talking about the organisation of the APIs, not their innovations.
Quote:
There is creative expression in API code as well as the noncopyrightable functionality
No denying that, but there's also creative expression in producing a list of chapter titles and minimal factual annotations. That doesn't mean it's sufficiently creative to gain copyright over not only the names, but the structure.
I'm glad that regardless of this decision I am unlikely to be directly affected, I do very little coding for US interests.
I think basically ruddy doesn't program, or doesn't understand enough of programming in order to be able to appreciate why this is an issue.
I understand perfectly well why it's an issue. You don't seem to understand why the historic principles of copyright will protect the original expression of APIs, and why an exception won't be made for them simply because it goes against the ideology of some software developers.
You guys keep wanting to pretend that declaring code isn't literal code.
I never stated that. Declaring code is literal code just as chapter titles of a book are literal text. My point of contention is that what Google did is no different from what WINE, MinGW, and other software projects have done (including Linux and *BSD, which took the ATT Unix API and provided their own implementations). A ruling that APIs are protected by copyright would be a radical change in the software industry and could put many well-established software projects in legal jeopardy. As I said earlier, MS hasn't sued WINE and MinGW - two projects with deleterious effects on MS's bottom line with no possible benefits - only because they've had no legal precedent for doing so, and they are probably hoping for this case to set that precedent.
A ruling that APIs are protected by copyright would be a radical change in the software industry and could put many well-established software projects in legal jeopardy. As I said earlier, MS hasn't sued WINE and MinGW - two projects with deleterious effects on MS's bottom line with no possible benefits - only because they've had no legal precedent for doing so, and they are probably hoping for this case to set that precedent.
Fact is the legal precedents for copyright protecting APIs have been there in both the Statutes and the case law for some time If Microsoft had really wanted to go after the those guys. That some software developers have gotten away with copying APIs without being sued (eg: Sun never sued Apache, but then never gave them a license either) isn't going to make a shit of difference for what the Supreme Court says is copyrightable. As it stands today, and since Feist established the precedent in 1991, it's the merest "spark" or "minimal degree" of original expression that warrants copyright protection. I doubt you'll find many judges who'll support the idea that the 37 accused Java APIs lack "spark" or a "minimal degree" of original expression, which is why this impending reversal has _always_ been a foregone conclusion.
Fact is the legal precedents for copyright protecting APIs have been there in both the Statutes and the case law for some time If Microsoft had really wanted to go after the those guys. That some software developers have gotten away with copying APIs without being sued (eg: Sun never sued Apache, but then never gave them a license either) isn't going to make a shit of difference for what the Supreme Court says is copyrightable. As it stands today, and since Feist established the precedent in 1991, it's the merest "spark" or "minimal degree" of original expression that warrants copyright protection. I doubt you'll find many judges who'll support the idea that the 37 accused Java APIs lack "spark" or a "minimal degree" of original expression, which is why this impending reversal has _always_ been a foregone conclusion.
As supported by the various examples I've cited (WINE, MinGW, *nixes), "some software developers" should really be "all software developers until this case." That's why this case is a big deal for the software community; it could invalidate how software development has worked practically since the dawn of the concept of an API.
Because I write it every day and I know that the method declarations pale into insignificance compared to the complexity and creativity of implementing the actual method
Obviously you exaggerate since an implementation without an API is meaningless and nonfunctional. That's like saying you can make human beings without any DNA.
Quote:
Innovations can be granted patents. We're talking about the organisation of the APIs, not their innovations.
There is no granting of patents for original expression. Patents protect methods, copyright does not. Copyright protects expression, patents do not. Either can be innovative. Intelligent debate about IP issues includes knowing the basic differences between what patents and copyrights protect, to avoid muddling them together like you're doing. The organization of an API is an expression, not a method. Functionality is achieved, however the functionality is not protected, only the way it in which was expressed in the code.
Quote:
Quote:
There is creative expression in API code as well as the noncopyrightable functionality
No denying that, but there's also creative expression in producing a list of chapter titles and minimal factual annotations. That doesn't mean it's sufficiently creative to gain copyright over not only the names, but the structure.
Like I said, the Supreme Court has already set the precedent that copyrightability needs only the merest spark and minimal degree of originality in expression. How are you going to claim that the Java APIs, which not only work with Sun/Oracle's implementations, but work with all the other licensed Java implementations out there, lack even a spark of originality?
As supported by the various examples I've cited (WINE, MinGW, *nixes), "some software developers" should really be "all software developers until this case."
Really? Apple allows competitors to hijack its APIs? IBM? How come Google doesn't let anyone hijack its Google Earth APIs?
Really? Apple allows competitors to hijack its APIs? IBM? How come Google doesn't let anyone hijack its Google Earth APIs?
Can you provide some examples where people tried to create their own implementations of Apple or Google APIs and got shut down in court over copyright (and not over corporate trademarks)? What APIs does IBM have? IBMs main proprietary software product is their own version of Unix, and the Unix API has been "hijacked" multiple times (for example, GNU/Linux most certainly did not write to AT&T requesting permission to use the Unix API). I doubt many parties could reimplement the Google Earth APIs because an implementation would require not only software but also a large library of mapping and satellite data as well as server capacity.
Can you provide some examples where people tried to create their own implementations of Apple or Google APIs and got shut down in court over copyright (and not over corporate trademarks)? What APIs does IBM have? IBMs main proprietary software product is their own version of Unix, and the Unix API has been "hijacked" multiple times (for example, GNU/Linux most certainly did not write to AT&T requesting permission to use the Unix API). I doubt many parties could reimplement the Google Earth APIs because an implementation would require not only software but also a large library of mapping and satellite data as well as server capacity.
First I think you're going to have to give up the idea that copyright law is going to treat declaring code any different from any other kind of code, or maybe you could lobby Congress to rewrite the copyright statutes to do that, because it's hard for me to see where the Supreme Court has the authority for it even if they wanted. Only Congress is empowered to change copyright law, the Supreme Court is limited to interpreting what Congress said. Next I'd point you to one of the most important precedents for this case, since it has many parallels and that's Apple v Franklin. As for IBM, I was referring to OS2 in its heyday. Unix is definitely a tangle, but in the end, how'd all those copyright lawsuits work out for SCO? Perhaps when the copyrightability of APIs is reaffirmed there'll be some nuisance suits like that, but I doubt they'd be any more successful than SCO was. In any case, that's what we have courts for.
First I think you're going to have to give up the idea that copyright law is going to treat declaring code any different from any other kind of code...
Next I'd point you to one of the most important precedents for this case, since it has many parallels and that's Apple v Franklin.As for IBM, I was referring to OS2 in its heyday. Unix is definitely a tangle, but in the end, how'd all those copyright lawsuits work out for SCO?
I did not make any predictions on how the court is "going" to rule on copyright law. My examples merely support the point that copying declaring code has long been standard practice in the software industry, and that no one until this case had been taken to court for it.
In Apple v. Franklin, Franklin lost for lifting an entire OS. If WINE had lifted Microsoft's implementation code, they would have lost in court a long time ago. That MS still hasn't sued WINE over copyright, despite attempting to hobble WINE in various other ways, supports my claim that the concept of a clean room API implementation was not legally challenged until this case; why would MS resort to half-measures, such as trying to prevent Office from updating itself when running under WINE, if its legal team could nip the problem in the bud by killing WINE altogether? SCO accused Linux for lifting proprietary Unix implementation code and lost the copyright suits, but did not dispute the practice of reimplementing the Unix API. The commercial Unix vendors had every reason to sue Linux over its use of the Unix API if they thought they had legal ground, since Linux was eating their business in the server market, but they never sued.
I did not make any predictions on how the court is "going" to rule on copyright law. My examples merely support the point that copying declaring code has long been standard practice in the software industry, and that no one until this case had been taken to court for it.
That's not in dispute. Nor will it have the slightest relevance to what the Courts decide wrt the copyrightability of APIs.
Quote:
That MS still hasn't sued WINE over copyright, despite attempting to hobble WINE in various other ways, supports my claim that the concept of a clean room API implementation was not legally challenged until this case; why would MS resort to half-measures, such as trying to prevent Office from updating itself when running under WINE, if its legal team could nip the problem in the bud by killing WINE altogether?
Not necessarily. No one knows Microsoft's internal policies wrt WINE and you are making some pretty huge assumptions. There are usually cost benefit analyses on these things. MS could sue and lose for example, MS could sue and there would be costs beyond legal fees such as developer resentment and bad PR. How big those costs are I have no idea, I have no privileged information. There are definite risks to suing anyone over WINE. Just as there may be benefits to leaving WINE users alone while making their user experience a pain in the neck, much like there are definite benefits for Apple having Hackintoshes around. They make sure the experience sucks but Hackintoshers think that suckiness is cool while they stick it to Apple. I'm doubtful many actual sales are lost due to Hackintoshes, meanwhile all those hackintoshers are learming Mac OS, and many of them will buy Macs one day because they got to know MacOS. Maybe WINE is a gateway like that for MS. Least i don't assume just because MS doesn't make WINE easy that they want to be rid of it. I'm more inclined to assume that they have WINE right where they want it, which includes their public posture towards it.
Quote:
SCO accused Linux for lifting proprietary Unix implementation code and lost the copyright suits, but did not dispute the practice of reimplementing the Unix API. The commercial Unix vendors had every reason to sue Linux over its use of the Unix API if they thought they had legal ground, since Linux was eating their business in the server market, but they never sued.
Like I said, code is code and I don't think the courts are going to go along with pretending that declaring code is somehow magically immune from copyright.
Like I said, code is code and I don't think the courts are going to go along with pretending that declaring code is somehow magically immune from copyright.
So Google's use of the API's is clearly and obviously illegal then? At the end of the day that seems to be the position you're taking.
Obviously you exaggerate since an implementation without an API is meaningless and nonfunctional. That's like saying you can make human beings without any DNA.
There is no granting of patents for original expression. Patents protect methods, copyright does not. Copyright protects expression, patents do not. Either can be innovative. Intelligent debate about IP issues includes knowing the basic differences between what patents and copyrights protect, to avoid muddling them together like you're doing. The organization of an API is an expression, not a method. Functionality is achieved, however the functionality is not protected, only the way it in which was expressed in the code.
Like I said, the Supreme Court has already set the precedent that copyrightability needs only the merest spark and minimal degree of originality in expression. How are you going to claim that the Java APIs, which not only work with Sun/Oracle's implementations, but work with all the other licensed Java implementations out there, lack even a spark of originality?
This is ridiculous, Obviously an implementation without an API is nonfunctional, but you then go on to confuse expression with functionality. In the declaration code the two are identical. They can not be separated. The expression is the method.
It may require only a spark, but you simply cannot deny that APIs are methods or systems of operation.
This argument is just going round in a circle with what seems to be two professional devs telling you you're wrong, and you claiming you're right because you programmed 30+ years ago.
I honestly don't care what US copyright law states, the fact of the matter is that protecting APIs means a vast majority of software out there infringes. Even trivial code I have written fundamentally will copy the structure/organisation of other APIs. Just like any book copies the chapter structure of my theoretical book.
There are definite risks to suing anyone over WINE. Just as there may be benefits to leaving WINE users alone while making their user experience a pain in the neck, much like there are definite benefits for Apple having Hackintoshes around. They make sure the experience sucks but Hackintoshers think that suckiness is cool while they stick it to Apple. I'm doubtful many actual sales are lost due to Hackintoshes, meanwhile all those hackintoshers are learming Mac OS, and many of them will buy Macs one day because they got to know MacOS. Maybe WINE is a gateway like that for MS. Least i don't assume just because MS doesn't make WINE easy that they want to be rid of it. I'm more inclined to assume that they have WINE right where they want it, which includes their public posture towards it.
The fundamental difference between WINE and Hackintoshes is that while Hackintoshes are basically Sunday DIY projects and nobody is making money off them, WINE is supported by commercial Linux vendors like Red Hat which compete against Microsoft in the enterprise sector. Every user who thinks Office runs just fine on Linux is a potential lost sale for Microsoft and a win for the Linux vendors. Moreover, there are entire businesses, like Codeweavers, whose sole objective is to make Wine run Windows killer apps like Office more smoothly on non-Windows machines. I find it implausible that the people at Microsoft looked at these companies over the last fifteen years and decided, "meh, WINE helps us in the long run."
I doubt it will be clear and obvious to folks like yourself even after the appeals are all said and done.
You've avoided a specific answer.
You're stating that Google has illegally copied the API's, which would be a fact the Appeals Court could establish as a matter of law. Am I correct? You're confidently declaring that if (when according to you) the copyright portion is overturned then "Fair Use" can't then be ruled dismissing the copyright claims, unlike the recent copyright case involving book scanning?
So then what's going to happen. You must be predicting an injunction order?
It may require only a spark, but you simply cannot deny that APIs are methods or systems of operation.
Yes, but that's not the issue, because they are not _only_ methods of operation, they also contain original expression, and copyright will protect the expressive part.
I honestly don't care what US copyright law states, the fact of the matter is that protecting APIs means a vast majority of software out there infringes.
Oh so you're just trolling then. Good to know.
Quote:
Even trivial code I have written fundamentally will copy the structure/organisation of other APIs. Just like any book copies the chapter structure of my theoretical book.
Just like a paranoid novelist then, best not to write anything because you'll get sued.
The fundamental difference between WINE and Hackintoshes is that while Hackintoshes are basically Sunday DIY projects and nobody is making money off them, WINE is supported by commercial Linux vendors like Red Hat which compete against Microsoft in the enterprise sector. Every user who thinks Office runs just fine on Linux is a potential lost sale for Microsoft and a win for the Linux vendors. Moreover, there are entire businesses, like Codeweavers, whose sole objective is to make Wine run Windows killer apps like Office more smoothly on non-Windows machines. I find it implausible that the people at Microsoft looked at these companies over the last fifteen years and decided, "meh, WINE helps us in the long run."
Well I don't know much about WINE, all I'm saying is that Microsoft's reasons for not going after WINE in the courts is perhaps more complex than you assume.
You're stating that Google has illegally copied the API's, which would be a fact the Appeals Court could establish as a matter of law. Am I correct? You're declaring "Fair Use" cannot be found, unlike the recent copyright case involving book scanning?
Google has already been found guilty of infringing the Java APIs. Soon Alsup's denial of copyrightability for them will be reversed, if you think that's unlikely I'll say again, listen to the judges yourself. I have my opinion about Google's Fair Use defense but am not declaring it impossible they can't win there. I'm saying it's possible Google will lose that too and Google will then face an all-out injunction. If Oracle wins an injunction, then Google will appeal to the SC, and the CAFC will perhaps grant a stay pending the appeal. Google might even settle once Alsup's ruling is demolished. There's all kinds of scenarios that could play out, this case is going to be in the headlines for a couple more years. Don't know which book scanning case you're referring to.
Yes, but that's not the issue, because they are not _only_ methods of operation, they also contain original expression, and copyright will protect the expressive part.
Can you name a method of operation without an original expression? Perhaps you could list something which is both and already decidedly under copyright so we can look at an independent example?
Quote:
Oh so you're just trolling then. Good to know.
Just like a paranoid novelist then, best not to write anything because you'll get sued.
I'm neither a troll nor paranoid. Once again I point out that I do this for a living. Should this case be decided then business in the US will become a lot more hostile as there is literally no way to research this sort of copyright claim. It would be even worse than patents as there could be no literature search beforehand. It's basically an invitation to begin copyright trolling en-masse.
I'm confused as to why you can't see this, but hopefully you can provide us with an example of a system of operation that doesn't require original expression.
Comments
You guys keep wanting to pretend that declaring code isn't literal code, that it's magic fairy dust instead of something extremely complex and creative that can be copied.
Because I write it every day and I know that the method declarations pale into insignificance compared to the complexity and creativity of implementing the actual method
Innovations can be granted patents. We're talking about the organisation of the APIs, not their innovations.
No denying that, but there's also creative expression in producing a list of chapter titles and minimal factual annotations. That doesn't mean it's sufficiently creative to gain copyright over not only the names, but the structure.
I'm glad that regardless of this decision I am unlikely to be directly affected, I do very little coding for US interests.
I think basically ruddy doesn't program, or doesn't understand enough of programming in order to be able to appreciate why this is an issue.
I understand perfectly well why it's an issue. You don't seem to understand why the historic principles of copyright will protect the original expression of APIs, and why an exception won't be made for them simply because it goes against the ideology of some software developers.
You guys keep wanting to pretend that declaring code isn't literal code.
I never stated that. Declaring code is literal code just as chapter titles of a book are literal text. My point of contention is that what Google did is no different from what WINE, MinGW, and other software projects have done (including Linux and *BSD, which took the ATT Unix API and provided their own implementations). A ruling that APIs are protected by copyright would be a radical change in the software industry and could put many well-established software projects in legal jeopardy. As I said earlier, MS hasn't sued WINE and MinGW - two projects with deleterious effects on MS's bottom line with no possible benefits - only because they've had no legal precedent for doing so, and they are probably hoping for this case to set that precedent.
A ruling that APIs are protected by copyright would be a radical change in the software industry and could put many well-established software projects in legal jeopardy. As I said earlier, MS hasn't sued WINE and MinGW - two projects with deleterious effects on MS's bottom line with no possible benefits - only because they've had no legal precedent for doing so, and they are probably hoping for this case to set that precedent.
Fact is the legal precedents for copyright protecting APIs have been there in both the Statutes and the case law for some time If Microsoft had really wanted to go after the those guys. That some software developers have gotten away with copying APIs without being sued (eg: Sun never sued Apache, but then never gave them a license either) isn't going to make a shit of difference for what the Supreme Court says is copyrightable. As it stands today, and since Feist established the precedent in 1991, it's the merest "spark" or "minimal degree" of original expression that warrants copyright protection. I doubt you'll find many judges who'll support the idea that the 37 accused Java APIs lack "spark" or a "minimal degree" of original expression, which is why this impending reversal has _always_ been a foregone conclusion.
Fact is the legal precedents for copyright protecting APIs have been there in both the Statutes and the case law for some time If Microsoft had really wanted to go after the those guys. That some software developers have gotten away with copying APIs without being sued (eg: Sun never sued Apache, but then never gave them a license either) isn't going to make a shit of difference for what the Supreme Court says is copyrightable. As it stands today, and since Feist established the precedent in 1991, it's the merest "spark" or "minimal degree" of original expression that warrants copyright protection. I doubt you'll find many judges who'll support the idea that the 37 accused Java APIs lack "spark" or a "minimal degree" of original expression, which is why this impending reversal has _always_ been a foregone conclusion.
As supported by the various examples I've cited (WINE, MinGW, *nixes), "some software developers" should really be "all software developers until this case." That's why this case is a big deal for the software community; it could invalidate how software development has worked practically since the dawn of the concept of an API.
Because I write it every day and I know that the method declarations pale into insignificance compared to the complexity and creativity of implementing the actual method
Obviously you exaggerate since an implementation without an API is meaningless and nonfunctional. That's like saying you can make human beings without any DNA.
Innovations can be granted patents. We're talking about the organisation of the APIs, not their innovations.
There is no granting of patents for original expression. Patents protect methods, copyright does not. Copyright protects expression, patents do not. Either can be innovative. Intelligent debate about IP issues includes knowing the basic differences between what patents and copyrights protect, to avoid muddling them together like you're doing. The organization of an API is an expression, not a method. Functionality is achieved, however the functionality is not protected, only the way it in which was expressed in the code.
No denying that, but there's also creative expression in producing a list of chapter titles and minimal factual annotations. That doesn't mean it's sufficiently creative to gain copyright over not only the names, but the structure.
Like I said, the Supreme Court has already set the precedent that copyrightability needs only the merest spark and minimal degree of originality in expression. How are you going to claim that the Java APIs, which not only work with Sun/Oracle's implementations, but work with all the other licensed Java implementations out there, lack even a spark of originality?
As supported by the various examples I've cited (WINE, MinGW, *nixes), "some software developers" should really be "all software developers until this case."
Really? Apple allows competitors to hijack its APIs? IBM? How come Google doesn't let anyone hijack its Google Earth APIs?
Really? Apple allows competitors to hijack its APIs? IBM? How come Google doesn't let anyone hijack its Google Earth APIs?
Can you provide some examples where people tried to create their own implementations of Apple or Google APIs and got shut down in court over copyright (and not over corporate trademarks)? What APIs does IBM have? IBMs main proprietary software product is their own version of Unix, and the Unix API has been "hijacked" multiple times (for example, GNU/Linux most certainly did not write to AT&T requesting permission to use the Unix API). I doubt many parties could reimplement the Google Earth APIs because an implementation would require not only software but also a large library of mapping and satellite data as well as server capacity.
Can you provide some examples where people tried to create their own implementations of Apple or Google APIs and got shut down in court over copyright (and not over corporate trademarks)? What APIs does IBM have? IBMs main proprietary software product is their own version of Unix, and the Unix API has been "hijacked" multiple times (for example, GNU/Linux most certainly did not write to AT&T requesting permission to use the Unix API). I doubt many parties could reimplement the Google Earth APIs because an implementation would require not only software but also a large library of mapping and satellite data as well as server capacity.
First I think you're going to have to give up the idea that copyright law is going to treat declaring code any different from any other kind of code, or maybe you could lobby Congress to rewrite the copyright statutes to do that, because it's hard for me to see where the Supreme Court has the authority for it even if they wanted. Only Congress is empowered to change copyright law, the Supreme Court is limited to interpreting what Congress said. Next I'd point you to one of the most important precedents for this case, since it has many parallels and that's Apple v Franklin. As for IBM, I was referring to OS2 in its heyday. Unix is definitely a tangle, but in the end, how'd all those copyright lawsuits work out for SCO? Perhaps when the copyrightability of APIs is reaffirmed there'll be some nuisance suits like that, but I doubt they'd be any more successful than SCO was. In any case, that's what we have courts for.
First I think you're going to have to give up the idea that copyright law is going to treat declaring code any different from any other kind of code...
Next I'd point you to one of the most important precedents for this case, since it has many parallels and that's Apple v Franklin. As for IBM, I was referring to OS2 in its heyday. Unix is definitely a tangle, but in the end, how'd all those copyright lawsuits work out for SCO?
I did not make any predictions on how the court is "going" to rule on copyright law. My examples merely support the point that copying declaring code has long been standard practice in the software industry, and that no one until this case had been taken to court for it.
In Apple v. Franklin, Franklin lost for lifting an entire OS. If WINE had lifted Microsoft's implementation code, they would have lost in court a long time ago. That MS still hasn't sued WINE over copyright, despite attempting to hobble WINE in various other ways, supports my claim that the concept of a clean room API implementation was not legally challenged until this case; why would MS resort to half-measures, such as trying to prevent Office from updating itself when running under WINE, if its legal team could nip the problem in the bud by killing WINE altogether? SCO accused Linux for lifting proprietary Unix implementation code and lost the copyright suits, but did not dispute the practice of reimplementing the Unix API. The commercial Unix vendors had every reason to sue Linux over its use of the Unix API if they thought they had legal ground, since Linux was eating their business in the server market, but they never sued.
I did not make any predictions on how the court is "going" to rule on copyright law. My examples merely support the point that copying declaring code has long been standard practice in the software industry, and that no one until this case had been taken to court for it.
That's not in dispute. Nor will it have the slightest relevance to what the Courts decide wrt the copyrightability of APIs.
Not necessarily. No one knows Microsoft's internal policies wrt WINE and you are making some pretty huge assumptions. There are usually cost benefit analyses on these things. MS could sue and lose for example, MS could sue and there would be costs beyond legal fees such as developer resentment and bad PR. How big those costs are I have no idea, I have no privileged information. There are definite risks to suing anyone over WINE. Just as there may be benefits to leaving WINE users alone while making their user experience a pain in the neck, much like there are definite benefits for Apple having Hackintoshes around. They make sure the experience sucks but Hackintoshers think that suckiness is cool while they stick it to Apple. I'm doubtful many actual sales are lost due to Hackintoshes, meanwhile all those hackintoshers are learming Mac OS, and many of them will buy Macs one day because they got to know MacOS. Maybe WINE is a gateway like that for MS. Least i don't assume just because MS doesn't make WINE easy that they want to be rid of it. I'm more inclined to assume that they have WINE right where they want it, which includes their public posture towards it.
Like I said, code is code and I don't think the courts are going to go along with pretending that declaring code is somehow magically immune from copyright.
So Google's use of the API's is clearly and obviously illegal then? At the end of the day that seems to be the position you're taking.
Obviously you exaggerate since an implementation without an API is meaningless and nonfunctional. That's like saying you can make human beings without any DNA.
There is no granting of patents for original expression. Patents protect methods, copyright does not. Copyright protects expression, patents do not. Either can be innovative. Intelligent debate about IP issues includes knowing the basic differences between what patents and copyrights protect, to avoid muddling them together like you're doing. The organization of an API is an expression, not a method. Functionality is achieved, however the functionality is not protected, only the way it in which was expressed in the code.
Like I said, the Supreme Court has already set the precedent that copyrightability needs only the merest spark and minimal degree of originality in expression. How are you going to claim that the Java APIs, which not only work with Sun/Oracle's implementations, but work with all the other licensed Java implementations out there, lack even a spark of originality?
This is ridiculous, Obviously an implementation without an API is nonfunctional, but you then go on to confuse expression with functionality. In the declaration code the two are identical. They can not be separated. The expression is the method.
It may require only a spark, but you simply cannot deny that APIs are methods or systems of operation.
This argument is just going round in a circle with what seems to be two professional devs telling you you're wrong, and you claiming you're right because you programmed 30+ years ago.
I honestly don't care what US copyright law states, the fact of the matter is that protecting APIs means a vast majority of software out there infringes. Even trivial code I have written fundamentally will copy the structure/organisation of other APIs. Just like any book copies the chapter structure of my theoretical book.
There are definite risks to suing anyone over WINE. Just as there may be benefits to leaving WINE users alone while making their user experience a pain in the neck, much like there are definite benefits for Apple having Hackintoshes around. They make sure the experience sucks but Hackintoshers think that suckiness is cool while they stick it to Apple. I'm doubtful many actual sales are lost due to Hackintoshes, meanwhile all those hackintoshers are learming Mac OS, and many of them will buy Macs one day because they got to know MacOS. Maybe WINE is a gateway like that for MS. Least i don't assume just because MS doesn't make WINE easy that they want to be rid of it. I'm more inclined to assume that they have WINE right where they want it, which includes their public posture towards it.
The fundamental difference between WINE and Hackintoshes is that while Hackintoshes are basically Sunday DIY projects and nobody is making money off them, WINE is supported by commercial Linux vendors like Red Hat which compete against Microsoft in the enterprise sector. Every user who thinks Office runs just fine on Linux is a potential lost sale for Microsoft and a win for the Linux vendors. Moreover, there are entire businesses, like Codeweavers, whose sole objective is to make Wine run Windows killer apps like Office more smoothly on non-Windows machines. I find it implausible that the people at Microsoft looked at these companies over the last fifteen years and decided, "meh, WINE helps us in the long run."
So Google's use of the API's is clearly and obviously illegal then? At the end of the day that seems to be the position you're taking.
I doubt it will be clear and obvious to folks like yourself even after the appeals are all said and done.
You're stating that Google has illegally copied the API's, which would be a fact the Appeals Court could establish as a matter of law. Am I correct? You're confidently declaring that if (when according to you) the copyright portion is overturned then "Fair Use" can't then be ruled dismissing the copyright claims, unlike the recent copyright case involving book scanning?
So then what's going to happen. You must be predicting an injunction order?
It may require only a spark, but you simply cannot deny that APIs are methods or systems of operation.
Yes, but that's not the issue, because they are not _only_ methods of operation, they also contain original expression, and copyright will protect the expressive part.
I honestly don't care what US copyright law states, the fact of the matter is that protecting APIs means a vast majority of software out there infringes.
Oh so you're just trolling then. Good to know.
Just like a paranoid novelist then, best not to write anything because you'll get sued.
The fundamental difference between WINE and Hackintoshes is that while Hackintoshes are basically Sunday DIY projects and nobody is making money off them, WINE is supported by commercial Linux vendors like Red Hat which compete against Microsoft in the enterprise sector. Every user who thinks Office runs just fine on Linux is a potential lost sale for Microsoft and a win for the Linux vendors. Moreover, there are entire businesses, like Codeweavers, whose sole objective is to make Wine run Windows killer apps like Office more smoothly on non-Windows machines. I find it implausible that the people at Microsoft looked at these companies over the last fifteen years and decided, "meh, WINE helps us in the long run."
Well I don't know much about WINE, all I'm saying is that Microsoft's reasons for not going after WINE in the courts is perhaps more complex than you assume.
You've avoided a specific answer.
You're stating that Google has illegally copied the API's, which would be a fact the Appeals Court could establish as a matter of law. Am I correct? You're declaring "Fair Use" cannot be found, unlike the recent copyright case involving book scanning?
Google has already been found guilty of infringing the Java APIs. Soon Alsup's denial of copyrightability for them will be reversed, if you think that's unlikely I'll say again, listen to the judges yourself. I have my opinion about Google's Fair Use defense but am not declaring it impossible they can't win there. I'm saying it's possible Google will lose that too and Google will then face an all-out injunction. If Oracle wins an injunction, then Google will appeal to the SC, and the CAFC will perhaps grant a stay pending the appeal. Google might even settle once Alsup's ruling is demolished. There's all kinds of scenarios that could play out, this case is going to be in the headlines for a couple more years. Don't know which book scanning case you're referring to.
Yes, but that's not the issue, because they are not _only_ methods of operation, they also contain original expression, and copyright will protect the expressive part.
Can you name a method of operation without an original expression? Perhaps you could list something which is both and already decidedly under copyright so we can look at an independent example?
Oh so you're just trolling then. Good to know.
Just like a paranoid novelist then, best not to write anything because you'll get sued.
I'm neither a troll nor paranoid. Once again I point out that I do this for a living. Should this case be decided then business in the US will become a lot more hostile as there is literally no way to research this sort of copyright claim. It would be even worse than patents as there could be no literature search beforehand. It's basically an invitation to begin copyright trolling en-masse.
I'm confused as to why you can't see this, but hopefully you can provide us with an example of a system of operation that doesn't require original expression.