Other than just wanting to be able to copy other people's work as they often do all the time anyway, I'm not sure I understand major tech giants' argument as to why APIs would not be copyrightable. They are, if anything, much harder to make well than their implementations.
-
-
Well the problem is: how to define „complete software“? Is API + print statement or a TODO comment a complete software? I know the logical answer, but it is hard to say if it will hold in the court

-
Doesn't this argument base on the assumption that someone would actually be able to design an API that is not pure trash without ever working out the details of how it fits into an actual software system? Sounds improbable to me.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Aren't the consequences of patenting API's basically the same as copyrighting them? No alternative implementations without licensing. Except patents expire in 20 years, while copyright is life of author + 100 years.
-
The difference is that you can make a similar API with copyright. You cannot with patents. Copyright prevents making literally Java. Patents prevent making anything like Java.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.