|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 05:53 AM EDT |
I have a similar background, hardware with only a smattering
of software. I think I understand now why there is so much
confusion over APIs.
Once upon a time computers were programmed directly on the
hardware with jumper links, primitive assembler code. As machines
got bigger and more complex higher level languages were used
with compilers to machine code. Think Cobol, Fortran, C. I believe
Judge Alsup would have no trouble grasping the concept of the
header file style API used as an interface between the language and
function libraries precompiled for the particular hardware. He would
also know these are recognised in the industry as not copyrightable.
Along come higher level languages to implement Object Oriented
programming where the precompiled libraries include classes
and methods, with inheritance and dependency. Trying to stretch the
old style API concept over this will produce bits that don't fit. The
bits that don't fit and by how much will depend on the OO language.
We have programmers here for everything, Java, Python, Ruby,
Smalltalk, etc, and each has his own non-programming background.
So, the analogies are "all over the map".
The question for the judge is are any of the extra features in an OO API
able to be copyrighted, and if so which ones for Java. We bystanders may
be disappointed that the question will be answered only in respect
of the 37 "APIs" in suit, and not generally for OO languages, and
that analogies of any sort may not be useful in answering the question.
It seems that most people here agree that Oracle is making stalwart
attempts that neither judge nor jury should understand what an
API is nor why their particular APIs are more worthy of respect than
others. Again, most analogies only add to the confusion.
The best analogy I have seen came from another Anon poster
above on this page, "Way way too complicated..."
A Library is a toolbox
An API is a list of the tools in the box
Except I would take that further, in an OO language a toolbox
may contain a sub-toolbox, and the toolbox or the sub-toolbox
may contain a reference to a tool that actually belongs somewhere
else across the system. Oracle's claim to copyright is based on
their creative expression in making these lists of tools. Although
their attorneys have a track record of lack of specificity about
exactly what is in dispute. Hence our need to grasp at analogies...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|