airmanchairman

bkkcanuck said:

Rayz2016 said:

bkkcanuck said:

I disagree with the Federal Court.  

API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

Actually, Google did copy code from Java. That's how the case first got started, but that's not really the point. The Java license permits this as fair use, and many of us have made a good living from Java and have given back by helping out on other projects and with occasional bug fixes. If fork a new version of Java, however, and then make a commercial product based around this fork then you are expected to buy a license. IBM did, and so did Microsoft.

Please provide some backup for this statement - I have read quite a few articles and the code that was "copied" was always the API (outline) i.e. java.util.BigDecimal.<method> - no implementation code.