|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 04:02 AM EDT |
That's a really clear explanation (as a programmer, I don't know whether it is
clear to a layman...)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darrellb on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT |
The three areas of API confusion seem to be:
API Specification - Written description of the API
API Implementation - Source code that implements the API Specification
API Library - Compiled code of the API Implementation
The others you list are relevant to a general discussion of APIs and execution,
but I don't think the in-memory copy or the run-time execution are at issue in
the copyright phase of the case. The execution may become an issue during the
patent phase of the case if any of the surviving patent claims relate to API
Library execution.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
To talk about an 'API' as a tangible thing is completely nonsensical
- You need to either talk about the: ...
With regard to copyright
law, one does not need to talk about the things you mentioned, with but one
exception.
When a work is copyrighted, the "work" is not a "tangible
thing"; it is the creative expression inhered in a tangible thing. The wording
of the legal definition of a "work" is rather confusing and misleading (and
circular), but the treatment of the term within the Copyright Act is consistent
with "work" being considered the intangible product of the creative activity of
the author (composer, artist, programmer, et al). When addressing the
tangible object in which the "work" is obtained, the Act refers to this
as a "copy".
For purposes of the law, the work is only deemed to be
created after it has been fixed in a tangible form, but the work itself is not
necessarily tangible. This step of fixating a copy being necessary to have the
work recognized as copyrighted is the exception to which I earlier referred.
Nonetheless, once the work satisfies the criteria of having been fixated, that
work is eligible for copyright protection, regardless whether it is tangible or
intangible. (Note: I am not disagreeing with your objection to APIs being
treated as tangible.)
How else would activities such as broadcasting a
movie, putting on a play, or doing a public performance of a song be restricted
under copyright? TV stations don't send the original, "tangible" film over the
airwaves, actors don't copy the "tangible" script of a play, and lounge singers
don't provide their audience with any "tangible" copies of a recorded song.
Infringement in such cases only makes sense if the "work" being infringed is the
intangible creative effort obtained in the tangible "copy" of the work that is
registered under copyright.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
You left out two facts.
One, the fact that nearly EVERY modern compiler optimizes code it compiles. So
even when two implementations of an API are written very differently, the
compiler may optimize them both to the EXACT same compiled binary.
Two, some API pieces are so simple that there is ONLY one way to write it, and
the binary code will ALWAYS be identical.
Hence it is COMPLETELY USELESS to compare two independent binaries.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
