Google wins over Oracle

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by ApK

That's not a relevant comparison.
The question of whether implementing an identical API should be allowed is, I think, orthogonal to how other systems interface with the API.

As an aside, I'd argue with the "usually" aspect of header files. There are plenty of APIs where the concept of a header file simply wouldn't apply, that have no source component at all, no SDK, barely any documentation....

I think you're going to have to go into more detail before convincing me it's not a relevant comparison. If you are allowing copying in one case, I think that is relevant to the other case.

As to the second point, APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) are source code based. Perhaps you're thinking of ABIs (Application Binary Interfaces)?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I think you're going to have to go into more detail before convincing me it's not a relevant comparison. If you are allowing copying in one case, I think that is relevant to the other case.

Well, think of it the other way. Lets say the api is determined to be protected, copyrighted, patentened, and no one could ever make a system that exposed an identical api. That would not prevent or affect the Official Owners ability to publish those headers or docs or sdk and for people to write apps that interface with it. That's what Its for. Being able to make another system that can be inerfaced the same way, or not, doesn't change that.

As to the second point, APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) are source code based. Perhaps you're thinking of ABIs (Application Binary Interfaces)?

I was thinking more of a web service that offers only it's wsdl, or an enterprise system that integrates only by importing xml files. Those mechasims would be their APIs. And sadly i can confirm that even large systems from major vendors sometimes offer amazingly little in the form of sdk or documentaion.

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

More general: Too many people arguing against IP rights "on principle" arepeople who never created anything worth copyrighting or patenting.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's all a function of whose ox is getting gored and who is getting a free ride

I'm not sure that these two statements are compatible. Either we argue for IP rights because they're meant to protect something "worth copyrighting or patenting" or we say that there is no such thing and that IP rights are just an excuse for corporations and states to stick fingers-in-eyes in each other in a "beggar thy neighbor" policy (akin to privateers).

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I'm not sure that these two statements are compatible. Either we argue for IP rights because they're meant to protect something "worth copyrighting or patenting" or we say that there is no such thing and that IP rights are just an excuse for corporations and states to stick fingers-in-eyes in each other in a "beggar thy neighbor" policy (akin to privateers).

It is, however, a very convenient way to simply dismiss the argument without having to address anyone's points. Quite a bit of what is patented now would not have been patent-able just 50 years ago. To a great extent that is true of copyright as well. That's why we now have a multi billion dollar industry for patent trolls, people who actually add nothing to the arts or sciences, yet extract a lot of money from those who actually produce products. Any time people start abusing the system, in mass, you eventually get a reaction to that abuse.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It is, however, a very convenient way to simply dismiss the argument without having to address anyone's points. Quite a bit of what is patented now would not have been patent-able just 50 years ago. To a great extent that is true of copyright as well.

Is it really true? Other than differences in copyright terms, what is protected by copyright now that would not have been in 1966?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is it really true? Other than differences in copyright terms, what is protected by copyright now that would not have been in 1966?

Software for one thing. Software didn't become protected by copyright until the mid 70's.

[Manabi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is it really true? Other than differences in copyright terms, what is protected by copyright now that would not have been in 1966?

Copyright wasn't automatic in 1966. The 1976 Copyright Act changed this, and as of January 1, 1978, copyright is automatic. So in 1966, all the notes you took, letters you wrote, etc. would only have been protected by copyright if you specifically sought to get them copyrighted. The same went for photographs, home movies, etc. Copyright has expanded in other ways too. For example, architectural works weren't copyrightable in the US until 1990.

Combine with the greatly extended duration of copyright now and you have both a lot more stuff being copyrighted today and for significantly longer periods of time. Also, prior to 1976, copyright required you to renew it after 28 years to receive an additional 28 years of protection. But the reality was, not many people bothered to renew:



The stats there are from William Patry's book, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Manabi

Copyright wasn't automatic in 1966. The 1976 Copyright Act changed this, and as of January 1, 1978, copyright is automatic. So in 1966, all the notes you took, letters you wrote, etc. would only have been protected by copyright if you specifically sought to get them copyrighted. The same went for photographs, home movies, etc. Copyright has expanded in other ways too. For example, architectural works weren't copyrightable in the US until 1990.

Combine with the greatly extended duration of copyright now and you have both a lot more stuff being copyrighted today and for significantly longer periods of time. Also, prior to 1976, copyright required you to renew it after 28 years to receive an additional 28 years of protection. But the reality was, not many people bothered to renew:



The stats there are from William Patry's book, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars.

Yep, if I were emperor I would move it back to 28 years and then you can renew every 28 years for life of the author. That would handle all except a handful of cases. If the author was still making money, he or she could simply renew. If they were not, then they wouldn't bother. The only real sticking point would be the Mouse and the Tolkien estate, both of which are still making money roughly 50 years after the author's death (1966 for Disney, 1973 for Tolkien).