|
|
|
| Authored by: mschmitz on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
That very much depends on the interpretation of 'API' in the judge's decision,
should it come to this.
If 'API' is being interpreted to mean the implementation in the Java language
(which appears to tie interface definition to implementation more so than other
languages do, or so I've come to understand), then that would give them rights
on any Java API that was clean-room implemented, but no more.
Conversely, if 'API' should be interpreted to mean the interface definition (you
pass this, you get this in return - as in recipe or contract) regardless of
implementation, then they could well claim rights in any use of said API,
regardless of a particular implementation or language.
Language is only one specific aspect of implementation, really. Who said that
all the API implementation ('library') code, down to the hardware level, was
really coded in Java? At some stage, you hit the system's standard libraries
which are usually coded in C. You may even hit libraries for specific
(numerical) purposes coded in Fortran. At the end of the day, execute a system
call on Android and you're definitely hitting C code - the Linux kernel. APIs
every step of the way.
Whether the law can be interpreted to allow such an encompassing view of
copyright on APIs, I honestly don't know. I'm a programmer (some of the time).
My gut feeling is that no one really knows, but it is a question of law not
fact, and hence no question for the jury. Something to be thankful for.
-- mschmitz
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
