|
I was always disgusted with the end user reporting tolls, Crystal, Oracle and and SQL Reporting all had them and they needed to be implemented by every client that used the reporting platform. And whenever a new report was required the developer was required to build it.
Not once have I seen the end user reporting toll ever used by and end user.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Just about every bloody framework I've ever worked with has ended like this.
|
|
|
|
|
An "API" is not "code"; it's a "promise" (or maybe only a hint).
It's like saying: if Java had a "GetApple()" method, no one else can use it without paying a royalty; even though said API might:
- returned an orange instead of an apple
- picked an apple from a tree vs a bin
- also washed or peeled the apple (optional parameter with default)
- returned Adam's apple
- etc.
An API is not code; the implementation (and how it is implemented) is.
Let's see if the enlightened judiciary gets it.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Depending on the API, it could be a lot more than a hint. I'd want to hear arguments on both sides before making up my mind.
Maybe the sketch for a symphony would be a good analogy. Various composers have left sketches for unfinished symphonies, although the level of detail varies. One completion of Mahler's 10th symphony had its performance banned by his estate, which held the copyright.
|
|
|
|
|
The symphony is an implementation that you can copyright; you can't copyright the "idea" / concept of a symphony (e.g. "romance").
An API is an abstraction. So is low-level code. The higher the abstraction, the more it qualifies as an "idea" and is then not subject to copyright.
What is "higher" than an API that can express the idea behind it? The consumer? Which depends.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
A symphonic sketch is less than a symphony (copyrightable) but less than an idea or genre (not copyrightable), which is why I thought it might be an interesting analogy.
An API might give you a very good idea of the underlying object model and its internal collaborations, which is far more than an idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to classify an API as "revealing" or "not revealing" would be pointless. I could publish a whole bunch of "do nothing" API calls just to claim it as my "vocabulary".
That goes way beyond sitting on a domain name.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are on to something plausible Greg. I’m thinking of sheet music. A composer wrote the symphony long ago and now we have the music written on paper for future generations to play. That sheet music is the api or interface (depending on which language you use). Behind it is the orchestra playing for us. The lead violinist may be male or female. That may be a form of copyright infringement if the first lead violinist was male. If the conductor decides to play the symphony more choppy than the sheet music shows then he may be in violation of the copyright.
Whoever the lead violinist is or how it is played is a result of the interpretation of that sheet music and the works are all done behind the scenes. Same as an api or interface.
There may be a better challenge to the copyright if any of the methods of the api/interface are changed, added, or deleted. Then the original api is not valid. If google is making changes to any methods (name, inputs, or returns), then they should rethink their strategy. Google can create a new api that subclasses Oracle’s api to add their new methods. Back in the days of COM, the inventors warned us that once an interface is published we should not change it. And that is for good reason. People using their older software who get their dependent libraries (or operating system) updated will expect their software to work. It’s better to be more customer friendly.
Imagine if your favorite symphony is 30 pages (of sheet music) long and the producer of the concert adds five pages from another symphony to the middle of the symphony you came to see. You might leave feeling disappointed. You may want your money back. You may want to sue all involved with the concert for screwing up your favorite symphony. Were copyright laws broken? That may be more subjective, but you must supply a convincing argument. (At least that is what I learned in my business law class.)
modified 10-Oct-20 20:15pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Sheet music is copyrighted, and performing it requires paying a royalty. I believe that its performance can be debarred, but this is rare. If the performance is allowed, the musicians can interpret it however they wish, and they're not in violation of the copyright if the composer doesn't like their performance. The sheet music is much more than an API, because skilled musicians can "implement" it in real time. Even lead sheets (lead line with chord symbols) fall into that category.
I was trying to find something that might be a legal precedent and thought a symphonic sketch might qualify. It can be copyrighted, although whether performing it requires paying a royalty might depend on its level of detail. Some sketches are much closer to finished sheet music than others. I believe that melodies in the sketch would stand up to copyright, but not general outlines.
Perhaps the analogy to music isn't a very good one, in which case there might not be any informative precedents. Then I'd argue that an API which implies an underlying object model should be copyrightable, and that by default it would be subject to the same license as the underlying implementation.
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought is was an Application Programming Interface, a black box of sorts, you put something in, and you get something out.
Maybe I am missing something?
Not sure why you need a Copyright for that, but hey, I'm a simple man, who knows very little about such things. lol
|
|
|
|
|
Oracle wants to copyright how you talk to their box. Which will then allow them to make you pay a royalty if you talk to an Android Google box.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't we been through this process before, regarding PC BIOS?
The PC BIOS was Copyrighted by IBM but Compaq and Phoenix and others copied the functionality without copying the code.
How did Compaq reverse engineered patented IBM code? - Quora[^]
So the question is, is the discussion regarding copyrighted code or patented code?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
That is a great example of precedence! A BIOS is a great example of an API. It's not high level like the one at issue, java, but that is definitely a software API where the application is the computer's operating system and, effectively, all programs that run on it.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
And Oracle can't be unaware of it.
So, what's different here?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
It has become a matter of convincing judges to see it. To those of us in the software world it's fairly obvious, I think.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly haven't followed it enough to have an informed opinion.
But generally, I'm of the opinion that the patenting system is completely bollocks at the moment.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: I'm of the opinion that the patenting system is completely bollocks at the moment.
Like 90% of the people with common sense and not involved directly with it.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully all those judges and high courts with decades of experience with copyright laws and the extensive details of the actual case come here to find the answer to their legal quandary from some guy on the internet. Who knows why the case has turned out to be so complex given how simple the issue apparently is.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Hopefully all those judges and high courts with decades of experience with copyright laws and the extensive details of the actual case come here to find the answer to their legal quandary from some guy on the internet.
Probably they should, because they do lack the technical knowledge about the possible implications that their veredict might have worldwide.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Who knows why the case has turned out to be so complex given how simple the issue apparently is.
Are we not speaking about trials, companies with a lot of lawyers and a possible big $$$ involved at the end? I would say it was not to expect anything else.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Probably they should, because they do lack the technical knowledge about the possible implications that their veredict might have worldwide.
That's quite patronising TBH, don't you think the complexity and depth of the laws involved are 1,000,000 times more difficult to grasp than understanding what an API is?
|
|
|
|
|
Patronising or not, the "possible implications that their verdict might have" are completely irrelevant to deciding a matter of law.
Besides which, education and background in law does not teach you what an API is. That's not to say that a lawyer or judge is incapable of understanding the concept, or indeed of doing so quickly. However they need to gain that knowledge from somewhere, and somewhere that is well informed and authoritative. This is one thing "expert witnesses" do - provide a (hopefully unbiased) explanation of how to interpret domain-specific terminology and concepts. In the UK, if you consider yourself to be an authority on a particular subject, you can submit your details to one of several expert witness directories and you can earn good money by sharing your expertise in court. Generally speaking, though, you do need to be very, very, very good.
|
|
|
|
|
What has happened is a tech-savvy judge got it sorted out and made their ruling. Oracle didn't like it and appealed to the next higher court. They didn't get and reversed. Google didn't like that and appealed, and ... I might have the ordered messed up but it has been a sequence of hearings somewhat like that.
The key to this case will be making an argument that the non-tech savvy supremes can almost understand so that they'll even hear it in the first place.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
They would first have to agree on the difference between an "argument" and a "parameter." 
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
You have not seen the patents that are our there... haven't you?
i.e.
Unlock a device by sliding your finger on the screen: Patented (as idea)
and there was a trial too (AFAIK its veredict was against all common sense)
So... I would not bet on this one.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The "swipe" is a particular technique, involving the device and the user, electronically, digitally, timings, offset, displacements, speed, pressure, etc. A lot more complex a scenario than a digital "promise".
An "API" can be 1 method / call; or thousands; or a subset; or a hyper-set; ...
We could start by eliminating "text speak" which has been piggy backing on a known language. Or make them pay a royalty.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
