|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
> If Oracle wins, unless any judgment against Google is very
narrowly tailored, it could be construed to make it
impossible to clone an API.
This is exactly what many people are afraid of, and I say
that a) there's nothing to be afraid of, and b) this is not
what the Sun paper is warning about.
Let me start with (b). First, lets get our nomenclature
straight. In software, interoperability means that two
programs (or software libraries) can work alongside one
another exchanging information. This is the common
definition, and the one explicitly mentioned in the Sun
paper: "new programmes which can communicate with other
programmes used by the customers". Why is interoperability
important? Sun says: "if such patents could be used to
prevent software vendors from developing new programmes ...,
users may find themselves locked into buying programmes from
only one vendor." So Sun was afraid of customers being
locked into buying an entire suite of products from one
vendor, because other vendors' products would be barred from
interoperating. For example, if you couldn't write programs
that interoperate with Sun's Java, you would have to buy
your Java EE application server from Sun alone. In reality,
you can use a Sun JVM and an IBM application server. The
sentence you quoted can only be read in this light: reverse
engineering must be allowed to uncover, say, an API that
would allow building interoperable software, e.g. an
application server interoperable with Java to compete with
Sun's own. Proof: the purpose of the position is clearly
stated: "using or selling products incorporating third party
patented technology necessary for the purpose of creating
interoperable products are not patent infringing".
Incorporating patented technology; not cloning it (which Sun
assumes might be prevented by patent enforcement).
As to issue (a), this is indeed a matter of opinion. I'm not
afraid because successful upstart products rarely rely on
cloning an "incumbent"'s API to achieve success, and cloning
of an API is rarely (if ever) a necessary requirement in
building a successful competitor. Google+ does not attempt
to clone Facebook's APIs (and this incompatibility is not
considered by anyone to be a main component in Google+'s
lackluster performance so far); C# did not clone Java's API;
and, perhaps most pertinent to this discussion, Android did
not clone most of Java's API - only 37 packages. For
example, it cloned neither Java ME's GUI APIs nor Java SE's,
and those are, arguably, the most complex API required for
mobile app development. This hasn't stopped Android from
becoming more successful than Java ME.
So I'm not worried, because even if APIs could be
copyrighted, it will have very little implications on
competitions (just like it never has so far).
OTOH, many vendors may choose to freely distribute their
APIs under open-source licenses, even more permissive than
the GPL, chosen by Sun and rejected by Android. They may
choose to do so in order to encourage adoption of their
product.
To sum up this point: allowing API cloning is clearly not
the intent of the Sun position paper; veto over API cloning
will have negligible effect on competition (if any); and
many vendors will choose to allow cloning of their API for
business reasons. And everything will be as it ever was.
One final point, regarding my own bias. Yes, I am biased
against opinions from free citizens that defend corporations
and paint them as being "right" or "wrong". I think of
corporations as animals guided by their survival instincts,
showing no empathy towards others (unless it serves their
purpose), and showing complete disregard to matters of
justice (and these two behemoth corporations are both at the
top of my most disliked companies). I see corporations as a
necessary evil. One of these companies may be right legally
and one may be right ethically (not necessarily the same
one), but I don't want to see volunteer soldiers on either
side. So I'm simply trying to balance the scale.
Nevertheless, this is a very interesting court case, and I'd
like to learn as much as I can about the pertaining laws and
legal arguments. Unfortunately, this has become rather
difficult to do here at Groklaw.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
