A California Jury Finds Copyright Infringement In an Interface (deepchip.com)

whoever57 writes: A California jury in one of the cases between Synopsys and Atoptech found copyright infringement in Atoptech's use of the "Primetime commands". These companies compete in the field of EDA ("Electronic Design Automation") software: software that is used by semiconductor companies to design ICs. The Primetime commands are merely an interface. Atoptech has their own implementation of the functionality that these commands [provide]. This can be seen as similar to the Oracle vs. Google lawsuit, in which an appeals court has found that providing a similar interface (via header files) can constitute copyright infringement. Naturally, there will be appeals in this case.

Comments

Let's Get This Interface!

[Anonymous Coward]

And bring it to justice!

Um. Let's pattent words.

[mmiscool]

How many people believe in owning imaginary things.

Re:Um. Let's pattent words.

[__aaclcg7560]

How many people believe in owning intangibles?

FTFY

Re:Um. Let's pattent words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Without word patents, no one would ever invent words when they can just free-ride off someone else inventing it! If you do the work of inventing a new word, you deserve to be rewarded, not stolen from.

Re:Um. Let's pattent words.

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept "owning" is an imaginary thing. Why limit it's application to "real" things?

Re:Um. Let's pattent words.

[doccus]

My farts are not imaginary! And your farts sound too much like mine! I'm suing!!

Lets eliminate copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's eliminate copyrights and patents here in the EU. Let the rest of the world fight and sue each other while we'll have freedom. The EU is smart enough to do something like this, unlike the US. The boost to EU economies will be enough to render the US even more irrelevant than it already is.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[GLMDesigns]

No. Let copyright exist for those who want it. Instead start using and promoting Free Software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
http://askubuntu.com/questions...

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Intellectual property is a lie. You are living a lie. Therefore, your whole life is a lie.

Why hide behind lies when you can simply level with everyone? Why do words exist except to share? Why place any barriers in the way? It's hypocritcal and stupid.

Just reject the lot of it. It's all garbage. Copyright, patents, trademarks... They are all just elaborate lies told by greedy assholes who don't deserve what they benefit from it. That is an undeniable fact.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Grishnakh]

The problem is that regular people, especially those on juries, are just too stupid to adopt and use Free Software.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[GLMDesigns]

I wouldn't call it stupid. Technology isn't their interest and many (free software) systems are not quite user-friendly. As time goes on they are becoming easier to user; easier to install and soon there won't be a technological barrier preventing people from using free software for a lot of what they do.

At that point it will be a philosophical decision as the technological barrier will no longer be in place.

I know PhDs in Biology who can barely tell the difference between a coaxial cable and a power cord.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Jason Levine]

Copyright does have its uses. Without it, someone could publish a book and have a movie company make a movie based on the book right away without giving the author anything. The problem with copyrights is that the terms and penalties have gotten all out of whack.

Copyrights now last for 90+ years and judges have indicated that any length of time is fine so long as it is limited. By this logic, they could extend copyright to 1 million years and argue that this is a "limited" period of time. Copyright lengths should be reduced to 14 years with a one-time, paid 14 year renewal. If something isn't making you enough money after 14 years to warrant paying for renewal, you let it go. And after 28 years, you should be able to milk everything out of it that you could so you release it to the public domain and make something new.

On the penalties front, the penalties were set in the days when casual copyright infringement was hardly ever prosecuted. People made and shared mix tapes recorded off the radio, but weren't sued for it. People who made multiple copies of CDs and sold them on the street corners, though, would find themselves in court facing huge fines. I'd argue that we should keep "commercial copyright infringement" fines where they are and cap "non-commercial/home infringement" at 10x the cost of buying the item infringed on. So if you uploaded 1,000 songs, you would face a fine of $0.99*10*1,000, or $9,900. High enough to act as a deterrent but not so high as to bankrupt you immediately. (Right now, uploading 1,000 songs would mean a fine of $750,000 to $150,000,000.)

If we reigned in copyright's length and fines, the balance would be restored and the usefulness of copyright would shine through again.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Without copyright, there is no copyleft.

Anyone can take the precious Free Software you love, make derivative works based on it, and give you only the binary. Because they no longer need a license to make copies of their work, the source code availability requirements in the license you chose don't matter; they simply didn't accept your offered license.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[JesseMcDonald]

Let copyright exist for those who want it.

A fine solution, if it were actually implemented consistently. If you want to claim copyright for your own works, you have to honor the copyright claims of others. Reciprocation is fair, after all. However, if you do not attempt to claim copyright on your own works, others cannot press any copyright claims against you. The penalty for copyright infringement is thus limited to having your own copyright claims invalidated.

The problem with copyright law is that it affects everyone, whether they want it or not. Asymmetric law is inherently unjust.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[bws111]

So you think you can take away my rights by not using yours?? Nope.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[JesseMcDonald]

So you think you can take away my rights by not using yours?

You mischaracterize the argument by phrasing the rejection of copyright as "not using" copyright. This is a form of circular reasoning; you presume the validity of copyright law from the start, when this is the very issue at stake. You claim that the right exists; others disagree. You are naturally free to behave as though the right exists when interacting with other like-minded individuals, but there is nothing inherent to the act of copyright violation that would justify a punishment more severe than violating the other party's copyrights in turn, which is of course no punishment at all for anyone outside your pro-copyright group who claims no copyrights in the first place.

The only legitimate rights are the ones which can be applied uniformly and universally, and only justifiable responses to the violation of a right are the ones proportional to the violation—meaning similar in both form and magnitude. Fines and/or jail time involve the violation of rights which rest on a completely different philosophical foundation than copyright and would consequently be disproportionate to the alleged offense.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[bws111]

You said:

If you want to claim copyright for your own works, you have to honor the copyright claims of others

In order for that sentence to make any sense at all, two things must be true: copyright must exist, and 'you' have a CHOICE (notice the IF in your statement) as to whether you want enforce it or not.

Then you said :

if you do not attempt to claim copyright on your own works, others cannot press any copyright claims against you

So, copyright still exists, you still have a choice as to whether or not to enforce, but NOBODY ELSE has the same choice. WTF???

Copyright IS uniform and universal. Nobody has to 'claim' anything. EVERYBODY has the right to create things, and EVERYBODY gets the SAME protections for the things they created. You don't have to do ANYTHING to get a copyright except create something. And the protection you get is that YOU control your creation and the distribution of it. What you do with that control is entirely up to YOU. You can give it to the world for free, no strings attached. You can give it to the world for 'free', with strings attached (eg GPL). You can keep it to yourself entirely. You can SELL your work.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[roman_mir]

Without it, someone could publish a book and have a movie company make a movie based on the book right away without giving the author anything.

- there is 0 problem with this. Government shouldn't be in any business, including business of protectionism and oppression via artificial oppressive monopoly power enforced by government agencies on anybody's behalf.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Theaetetus]

Copyright lengths should be reduced to 14 years with a one-time, paid 14 year renewal. If something isn't making you enough money after 14 years to warrant paying for renewal, you let it go. And after 28 years, you should be able to milk everything out of it that you could so you release it to the public domain and make something new.

While it's not a bad idea, I've got a counter-proposal. Copyright is really a bundle of different rights, including the right to make copies, the right to distribute a work, and the right to make derivative works. Making copies of an original work or distributing it seems to be significantly less defensible than making a derivative work. For example, even though it's been more than 14 years, making dozens of copies of the movie Die Hard and/or distributing them to others is directly using another's creative work, without adding anything. However, making a derivative work, such as a Die Hard musical or a Roshomon-style "Die Hard from Gruber's perspective" movie, requires creativity and makes something new that didn't exist before.
Similarly, copying and distributing Steamboat Willie doesn't add anything, but making a new Steamboat Willie adventure does. Or copying and distributing an album, compared to remixing it or sampling it for use in an otherwise new work.

Accordingly, I'd submit that copyright term should be split, with a very short exclusive term for creation of derivative works: if a book author wants to remake it as a screenplay, or a band wants to remix their album into a dance version, let them have, say, five years. If they don't, let others take a turn with their creativity. But keep the longer term for exact copying and distribution of the original, since infringing that doesn't add anything new to the art.

On the penalties front, the penalties were set in the days when casual copyright infringement was hardly ever prosecuted. People made and shared mix tapes recorded off the radio, but weren't sued for it. People who made multiple copies of CDs and sold them on the street corners, though, would find themselves in court facing huge fines. I'd argue that we should keep "commercial copyright infringement" fines where they are and cap "non-commercial/home infringement" at 10x the cost of buying the item infringed on. So if you uploaded 1,000 songs, you would face a fine of $0.99*10*1,000, or $9,900. High enough to act as a deterrent but not so high as to bankrupt you immediately. (Right now, uploading 1,000 songs would mean a fine of $750,000 to $150,000,000.)

And here, I disagree with your calculation because of those different rights to copy and distribute noted above. Making a mix tape creates individual copies, and so a fine that's related to the cost of buying those copies makes sense. But distributing copies to others or sharing a song online is distribution, and the distribution rights cost much, much more than a single copy. It's not like Apple pays Taylor Swift $0.99 for a copy of her latest song that they then resell to millions on the iTunes Store - they're paying many tens of thousands, with royalties and likely a fixed minimum amount. Similarly, when Michael Jackson bought a bunch of the Beatles' catalog back in the 1980s, he wasn't just going to the record store and buying individual albums - he was buying the distribution rights, at somewhere around $50k per song.

So, if you only ever download a song and never upload it - leaching - then you'd have an argument that you were just making a single copy and those fines should be proportional to purchasing a copy. But if you upload the song to others, you're distributing it, and the fine should be proportional to a distribution right - somewhere in that $750 to $30k* range.

*I specify $30k as opposed to the "up to $150k for willful infringement" in the statute, because I think the RIAA and the courts have been using the wrong definition for "willful". It should be interpreted similarly to how it a

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it be bad if someone made a movie and didn't pay the boor writer? If you wrote a book... you would LOVE to have someone make a movie of it... LOVE it! Even if you got zero of the sales dollars from the movie. Your book sales would skyrocket... and, when you wrote the book, that's all you were hoping for, good book sales. You had no guarantee anyone would want to make a movie. Copyright was NOT designed to keep someone from making a different production of your book... it was designed to keep someone from making your book... and selling it... and cutting you out. And that's all. You don't own the ideas - only the expression of them.

If anyone would like to make a movie of this post... I wish them all the luck in the world.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[JesseMcDonald]

If you want to claim copyright for your own works, you have to honor the copyright claims of others

In order for that sentence to make any sense at all, two things must be true: copyright must exist, and 'you' have a CHOICE (notice the IF in your statement) as to whether you want enforce it or not.

Copyright as a concept must exist, but that goes without saying. That does not imply that it represents any kind of universal right which you could enforce on others with threats of fines or other violation of their physical property rights or personal liberty. As always, reciprocation is the key: it would be nonsensical to claim copyright protection on your own works while ignoring similar claims made by others, and the same goes for their claims if they choose to ignore yours.

if you do not attempt to claim copyright on your own works, others cannot press any copyright claims against you

So, copyright still exists, you still have a choice as to whether or not to enforce, but NOBODY ELSE has the same choice.

On the contrary, everyone else has exactly the same choice: respect others' copyright claims and have a reasonable expectation that they (meaning the others making copyright claims) will respect yours, or ignore others' copyright claims and have your own (if any) ignored in turn. This is how rights work: you respect others' and they respect yours in turn, because doing otherwise would undermine both your claims. As a consequence, rights are only meaningful so long as they are valued by both sides. This is what prevents them from being completely arbitrary.

Copyright IS uniform and universal. ... EVERYBODY has the right to create things, and EVERYBODY gets the SAME protections for the things they created.

Protections which are valued only by the pro-copyright faction, and thus not universal. If you are for copyright you receive the protection you wanted. If you are against copyright and do not wish these protections for your own work then you receive nothing of value, rather the contrary: those protections have negative value to you.

It is not enough for a right to be uniformly applied; it also has to be equitable. The cost of respecting the right as it applies to others should be perceived by all involved as a fair trade in exchange for others' respecting the right as it applies to oneself. Rights are a voluntary arrangement, not objective fact: anyone can choose to opt out of any right at any time, simply by choosing not to respect the right as it applies to others. The rights which are considered universal, like physical property and personal liberty, are the ones that few would choose to opt out of because everyone depends on them to function. Copyright, on the other hand, is not such a right. Opting out would involve little in the way of consequence for the majority of the population, whether because they produce nothing of value, or (more commonly) because they do not seek to restrict others from benefiting from or distributing the creative works which they do produce.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Jason Levine]

I agree that uploading is distribution. The problem is proving exactly how many people the song was distributed to. If you were at a street corner selling DVDs, the police might be able to raid your operation and determine how many CDs you sold, but how do you do this for P2P? Obviously, there's at least one distribution offense (sending the file to the RIAA or related agency who "caught" you and added you to the list to sue), but how many others? Do you sue for distributing to 100? 1,000? 1.000,000? How do you determine just how many "lost sales" (as much as I hate that term) a share is worth?

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Jason Levine]

Actually, there is every problem with this. Let's take the Harry Potter books, for example. Rewind to when the first book was released (1997). The first movie was released in 2001 - only 4 years later. What would have happened if copyright wasn't an issue? Warner Brothers Pictures could have produced and released the movies without paying JK Rowling one cent. In fact, who would pay the author anything for any work if they didn't have to?

Stepping away from adaptations, one of the big problems, historically, was book knockoffs. Someone would publish a book and suddenly fifty different publishing companies would flood the market with fifty different versions of that book. Only one would actually give the author some revenue - the others just profited off someone else's work without giving back anything. In this scenario, it becomes hard for an author to make any money even with publishing their book (again, ignoring any movie rights, etc) since consumers could just as easily find the knock-off versions for sale and buy those. A book that sold a million copies (across all versions) might only give the author royalties based on 20,000 copies.

Do you think that artists shouldn't have any right to seek profits from their works even for a limited time without others taking their works and using them? Do you think, if such a system were implemented, that big companies wouldn't immediately appropriate any and all works done by smaller artists without compensating the smaller artists at all?

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[roman_mir]

To me it is 100% irrelevant that a book author gets no copyright protection from the government. An author getting his or her book used as a movie plot is 0 issue, whether they get paid for something or not. Same with software, music, video, anything at all. All of these artificial monopolies provided by the government oppression is insane from every point of view, including the moral and the economic arguments.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that artists shouldn't have any right to seek profits from their works even for a limited time without others taking their works and using them?

I actually don't. I don't think everything people do should be for financial compensation. I think unless you're doing an art on commission, you shouldn't have a right to earn money from it. I don't think anyone should have the right to control how other people use their brains and by extension their hands, feet and mouths to produce or reproduce things.

I think those "big companies" you are scared of appropriating everything can't and wouldn't exist without copyright, as they didn't exist prior to copyright; and it is copyright that is the lever they use to make themselves big and others small. A company with the large ostentatious overheads and extravagances that seem to be getting people all riled up today, couldn't compete with smaller more economical companies if it weren't for the levers of copyright and patent law that they use to push everyone else down. I think that copyright is monopolising culture, and is the force that divides us and belittles the value of individual achievement and intimate social interactions. Copyright ensures that the "value" of a work of art is not in it's inherent quality, but in the desires of the promoters, and more recently, in the alignment of that work with the goals of advertisers.

I think that a lot of the "work" produced today has no intrinsic value, as it is created to grab attention rather than to carry any kind of personal message or thing that is worth saying.

I think that work that is worth doing whether it be art or building a house, is worth doing extrinsically to any financial motivation, and the financial aspect should exist to make both parties whole. I believe that people are putting far too much value on creative pursuits, to the detriment of society and at the expense of more critical things. We have large parts of the country with no safe drinking water, stable electricity supply and roads and bridges that are falling apart; but our societies propaganda encourages us to get wealthy making music videos, movies, and useless iApps, when there ought to be, and perhaps already is, huge wealth to be made, fixing the infrastructure, the civic institutions and the foundations that allow us to enjoy entertainment, not just for people who live around Hollywood Blvd. or Mountain View, but for people living in Flint. Michigan or Detroit.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Grishnakh]

It has nothing to do with knowing the different between electrical cords, it's a basic concept about freedom. It's the exact same principle governing access to service manuals and diagnostic information for your car: do you want to be forced to go to the stealership, or do you want to be able to take your car to any qualified mechanic?

It's pretty sad that I have to explain this to someone on Slashdot of all places. I guess this really isn't a nerd site any more.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

To be useful, you need to give an example of what is non-insane.

Otherwise, we just know what you think is crazy, without knowing what you think is not crazy.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Darinbob]

There's another problem with copyrights in that they're being extended to things that probably shouldn't be copyrighted. Like APIs.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Darinbob]

Then there are the comic book artists working for low to moderate pay who finds that some panels are enlarged and end up in museums of art making lots of money for Roy Lichtenstein with no royalties being paid.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Darinbob]

What about if Warner Brothers makes millions of dollars of revenue from copying your work without giving any compensation back? Why should someone want to spend any amount of time trying to be a novelist if someone can just steal it immediately and make copies? You might not even get any sales if a competing publishing house steals the text, adds some illustrations, then sells it at a cheaper price than the original publisher you chose. The purpose of copyright law and patents are to provide incentive to create art and inventions, so that one can actually make a living in such fields.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Theaetetus]

I agree that uploading is distribution. The problem is proving exactly how many people the song was distributed to. If you were at a street corner selling DVDs, the police might be able to raid your operation and determine how many CDs you sold, but how do you do this for P2P? Obviously, there's at least one distribution offense (sending the file to the RIAA or related agency who "caught" you and added you to the list to sue), but how many others? Do you sue for distributing to 100? 1,000? 1.000,000? How do you determine just how many "lost sales" (as much as I hate that term) a share is worth?

The statutory damages are a reasonable balance there - the jury can decide whether to award at the low end or high end based on the facts, and the defendant can provide mitigating facts, too. For example, if you have a log showing that you only seeded a file to a dozen people, you can show that and argue that you should be liable for the minimum. If you don't have that log, then the jury can assume there's a reason you don't and find you liable for more.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? What part of the work Warner brothers does am I entitled to?

If I wanted to make millions of dollars, *I* should have put the work into mass distributing it; not feel entitled to the work of someone else.

I know exactly the purpose of copyright, I just think it has run it's course. It incentivises creation and exploitation of knowledge over work in the physical realm. That was a good idea 100 years ago when we had a great shortage of knowledge and art. Now we are beginning to see a shortage of physical goods and services, for example, distribution of knowledge: there are plenty of movies and television shows out there, but there are no legal ways to access most of them. There is plenty of good software, that no longer works due to changes in ABIs, yet nobody is allowed to adapt it to work again.

I am saying exactly that someone willing to do the real-world work of distribution or use of knowledge should be entitled to, as that work is now more scarce and desirable than the work of creating more knowledge and information. We no longer have a shortage of knowledge, we have a shortage of distribution and we also have a shortage of many physical objects, because we have granted through IP monopolies the right to steal other peoples hard work of producing things to some people who merely thought of producing things.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The statutory damages are a reasonable balance there - the jury can decide whether to award at the low end or high end based on the facts, and the defendant can provide mitigating facts, too. For example, if you have a log showing that you only seeded a file to a dozen people, you can show that and argue that you should be liable for the minimum. If you don't have that log, then the jury can assume there's a reason you don't and find you liable for more.,

Statutory damages only come into play if the jury has decided that both the original law, and that portion of the law specifying the statutory damages, are legitimate exercises of government authority. In other words, it is the responsibility of the jury to decide if the government has violated any rights "retained by" the people (Bill of Rights, 9th Amendment), or "reserved to" the people (Bill of Rights, 10th Amendment).

In all likelihood, none of the jurors in this case could tell you anything about either of these amendments - they are completely ignorant of their legal rights and responsibilities. The US legal profession likes to select idiots as jurors, because they are more easily influenced.

Since US copyright law does in fact violate fundamental rights (such as the right to ethical practice of law - a point that has been discussed at length on this forum), a competent jury would have told the lawyers to go pound sand. This jury - like most - was incompetent.

While a lack of integrity in the US legal profession is most of the reason the USA is known world-wide as the "Land of the Lawsuit" (or - more accurately - the "Land of Unethical Practice of Law"), the folks that serve on juries must share some of the blame. A willingness to serve as a rubber stamp for unethical laws and policies seems to be the primary criterion for service on a jury in the USA.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyrights now last for 90+ years and judges have indicated that any length of time is fine so long as it is limited. By this logic, they could extend copyright to 1 million years and argue that this is a "limited" period of time.

This is basically a legal ethics issue. The more the legal system gets cluttered up with encumbrances - whether its in the form of treaties or long term contracts (such as those inherent to copyright law as the lawyers to chosen to implement it), or even just excessive and overly broad patents (at least those expire!), the more demand there is for the services of legal professionals (we exclude those treaties and contracts that just transfer land, since that's effectively instantaneous, but not when that transfer is hindered by an encumbrance such as an easement or HOA). The same applies to overly complex or overly broad laws.

Supply and demand, it's simple economics, and the lawyers fully understand the consequences of their actions.

The various associations representing legal professionals give lots of money to politicians (most of whom are lawyers themselves, and thus easy to bribe on this issue) to ensure this happens. They influence not on the writing of the laws, but also the selection of judges, which is why you seldom see judges at any level acknowledging the legal ethics issues inherent in the cases they handle.

This most definitely includes the Supreme Court. From the early cases involving slavery, to the cases that upheld the Jim Crow law, to the present day, the Supreme Court routinely ignores very serious legal ethics issues in cases. This is easy to see: get a book about Constitutional law, open to a random case, and think about the legal ethics implications of that case. If you don't get a hit on the first try, you will by the second or third, assuming you know what to look for. Hint: any time you have a contradiction in the legal system, or something that creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals, then you have a legal ethics issue. Many of the specific decisions have been discussed on this forum if you need help.

My favorite example in recent times is Obama Care. Not that I'm opposed to health care reform (or reform of the insurance business in general - regulation is and always has been of critical importance to capitalism), but why did we need over 2000 pages of new law when the Canada Health Act is only 14 pages, including the French translation? The Supreme Court apparently didn't even bother to read most of it, and they certainly didn't do their jobs. Of course, once they were unethical or incompetent enough to allow the federal government to create over 2700 pages of tax law, it wasn't a big step to allowing more illegal and unethical laws.

Putting this in other terms, we didn't end up with the name "Land of the Lawsuit" as an accident, and all those jokes about unethical lawyers didn't just magically appear without any connection to a real and very serious problem.

Since the right to ethical practice of law is certainly a fundamental right in any society founded by the rule of law, and thus protected as a right "retained by the people" under the highest law of the land, it should be apparent that there is an awful lot of oath-breaking going on, which has all kinds of far-reaching negative consequences for US society (such as people losing their jobs, going bankrupt, and even dying). The rest of the world is starting to experience some of the consequences as well, as a result of the increasingly global economy.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Jason Levine]

That's definitely a problem. Someone's work shouldn't be simply enlarged by an "artist" who calls the resulting piece an "original artwork" when all he did was make it bigger. However, if the roman_mir had his way and copyright was fully abolished, then those comic book artists would have zero recourse. People could take their artwork and immediately republish it not only as a museum art piece, but as another comic book under the same name. The comic book artist would see people buying his works but since they were published by someone else, he wouldn't get any money for them at all.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Jason Levine]

Agreed, but I don't think there would be a rush to extend copyright to APIs if copyright only lasted 14 years (plus a one-time paid 14 year renewal) and had small fees for non-commercial infringement. They might try shifting their arguments to trademark or patents instead, but they'd likely be less successful there.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[GLMDesigns]

You're preaching to the choir. My point is that the technological barrier with using free software prevents others from using them. As these barriers drop adoption will rise.

Berating friends and family for not using more free software is not the solution. There are many steps in correcting this situation. One of them is simply making people be aware of the reasons to use free software. THEN, as the software becomes easier to adopt they will have both the incentive to switch while no longer being blocked by a technological hurdle.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Grishnakh]

My point is that the technological barrier with using free software prevents others from using them. As these barriers drop adoption will rise.

No, it doesn't, as I just pointed out with cars. You don't have to be a mechanic to understand that it's better to be able to get your car serviced at a practically infinite number of independent mechanics rather than being stuck with the dealership. The exact same principle applies with software. Most people are not mechanics and don't work on their own cars, but independent mechanics generally do very well because most car owners are apparently savvy enough to understand that the dealership is not going to give them the best price or service.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[GLMDesigns]

You make a good point. BUT there is a difference. Linux was much harder to use 15 years ago than it is now. The avg person can use linux now without a problem (provided it's installed for him). As free software packages become easier to install and are as convenient to use as Office (for example). Then people will use them as well.

The car analogy you mentioned would have to include that free software is stick only (no automatic) with no power windows or steering. A few years ago you also had to go the the front of your car and crank start the motor and the perception is still skewed in that direction.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Rakarra]

What about if Warner Brothers makes millions of dollars of revenue from copying your work without giving any compensation back? Why should someone want to spend any amount of time trying to be a novelist if someone can just steal it immediately and make copies? You might not even get any sales if a competing publishing house steals the text, adds some illustrations, then sells it at a cheaper price than the original publisher you chose. The purpose of copyright law and patents are to provide incentive to create art and inventions, so that one can actually make a living in such fields.

I think you missed his point -- he's saying that making a living by being an author or movie maker or singer is just something you shouldn't do. He's very dismissive of popular culture.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Rakarra]

Most of the time the comic artist creates a work for hire, so he has zero ownership of it should it be put on a t-shirt or displayed in a museum.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Darinbob]

Meh. People pay to listen to someone sing, others pay to get a silly new gadget that makes people dumber. If we all were only paid if we did something useful for society we'd have a massive unemployment problem while people tried to justify why their web app to help you find the nearest coffee was important.

Re:Lets eliminate copyright

[Jason Levine]

And what of people like Bill Watterson who own the copyrights on their own works. I know there are countless "Calvin peeing" decals for cars and (to my knowledge) he hasn't taken a "sue them all into oblivion" approach. Still, if someone were to have mass produced a "Hobbes" stuffed animal in 1990, should Bill Watterson have been given no recourse and receive no compensation?

By the way, this example does bump slightly into my theory that copyright terms should be more limited which is why I added "in 1990." I'm a proponent of 14 years plus a one-time 14 year renewal. The first Calvin and Hobbes was 31 years ago and, under a 14+14 system those first strips would be public domain. People might have been fine (copyright-wise) making Hobbes dolls and Calvin peeing decals under this system, but wouldn't have been in 1990 - a mere 5 years after Calvin and Hobbes debuted.

Technical topics are not a jury competency

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole idea that a jury can decide one way or another on a technical matter is pretty idiotic, and a misapplication of jury process as it enshrines decision making on the basis of ignorance.

In fact the whole legal system is back to front on this issue, since having specialist domain knowledge in an area often precludes you from serving on a jury in a relevant case. That's severely illogical.

Not even judges should have the power to make such decisions, because they are experts in law. not in technical topics. Making a good decision based on pro/con arguments presented by technical experts does not mean that the decision will be a good one, because a judge's second-hand understanding will always be superficial at best.

There are two good sources for informed decision making on technical topics: the professional institutions in a technical domain (such as IEEE, IEE/IET, BCS, ACM), and vocational academic bodies created for this purpose and barred from commercial influence. No human-based decision making can be perfect, but this would at least eliminate the ill-informed harm being done by judges and the general public working outside of their competency.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[gtall]

Yeah, those organizations are completely free of particular company influence, let them decide.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[tsstahl]

Judges can appoint a 'special master' to impartially advise the court on technical issues.

Juries very well may get technical matters wrong, but that is one reason why there are appellate courts.

I doubt many criminal juries are staffed by people expert in homicide, yet we do not doubt their ability to render a verdict.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those organizations are completely free of particular company influence, let them decide.

Only non-representative or non-inclusive influence is bad.

These institutions are not free of company influence, but they are influenced by a huge number of companies of all shapes and sizes operating in their tech domain, both nationally and internationally, and they also have a very strong representation from academia. As a result, they are very well informed and also balanced, and so they represent a professional consensus on technical topics.

That's infinitely more reliable, useful, and appropriate than the random decisions typically coming out of the court system where "expert witnesses" are chosen by opposite sides more for their bias than for their lack of it.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[Kjella]

In fact the whole legal system is back to front on this issue, since having specialist domain knowledge in an area often precludes you from serving on a jury in a relevant case. That's severely illogical.

I disagree. A technical expert on the jury could easily manipulate the rest by appeal to authority, even though he/she has a biased opinion of the case and dubious evaluation of the evidence. I think you get better results if everybody on the jury thinks their opinions and ideas are of equal value and get technical experts to explain it with concepts they can understand.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that these are technical matters at all. There is ordinarily no agreement over the facts only an interpretation of the law. So I agree that juries are not really useful - these cases invariable go layers of appeals. - think Samsung vs Apple. For those of you who would rather learn than spout opinions (opinions from programmers are probably less useful than those from bus drivers) - take a look at Data General vs Digidyne a case that went to the Supreme Court after several flip-flop verdicts.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[CurryCamel]

The whole idea that a jury can decide one way or another on a technical matter is pretty idiotic

Luckily this is not a terribly technical question: Company A cloned company S's product. Is this OK?
This is NOT a technical question. Its an ethical, legal, economic and societal question.

And the answer seems to be 'no, it is not fine'. Which is sort of strange, IMHO. But then I'm not an expert on US law or society. I am, however, a expert in this technical field. And had I been on that jury, I would have been as baffled as the next juror.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[Anonymous Coward]

A technical expert on the jury could easily manipulate the rest by appeal to authority

Which is precisely why juries should not be involved in technical topics at all.

Right now they're being swayed by the more eloquent of the presentations they hear and by the best analogies made for their uninformed benefit. It's really quite ridiculous, and it's starting to harm engineering because it prevents court decisions from reflecting technical consensus within a profession, except possibly by accident.

Jurors shouldn't be placed in the impossible situation of being asked to make a good judgement when they don't have the background for it. This situation will just get worse and worse, as the concepts in technology become ever more complex and recede ever further beyond the normal experience of jurors.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges can appoint a 'special master' to impartially advise the court on technical issues.

Juries very well may get technical matters wrong, but that is one reason why there are appellate courts.

I doubt many criminal juries are staffed by people expert in homicide, yet we do not doubt their ability to render a verdict.

"OJ did it!"

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[Raenex]

A technical expert on the jury could easily manipulate the rest by appeal to authority, even though he/she has a biased opinion of the case and dubious evaluation of the evidence.

That's exactly what happened in the Samsung vs Apple case.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[Anne Thwacks]

Luckily this is not a terribly technical question: Company A cloned company S's product. Is this OK?

The short answer is YES IT IS OK.

The API is not the product, it is how you interact with the product, and it has been established in countless precedents that it is covered by fair use.

Unfortunately, not in the USA, where the legal system has been sold to the highest bidder in a manner that makes corruption in third world countries appear trivial.

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[Darinbob]

Except that special masters who are part of the industry are going to be biased towards that industry and it's difficult to find one that really is impartial. For instance, appointing someone who used to be a corporate CTO would result in a bias towards continuing the ongoing patent wars, that software patents are valid, that APIs can be copyrighted, etc. But appoint RMS and you get a bias in the opposite direction.

A special master can be useful in deciding if a patent really was novel or not. However consider that the jury West Texas were not swayed by the testimony of Whitfield Diffie or Ron Rivest regarding an invalid patent on encryption (not special masters though and they had a jury instead of just a judge).

Re:Technical topics are not a jury competency

[CurryCamel]

Luckily this is not a terribly technical question: Company A cloned company S's product. Is this OK?

The short answer is YES IT IS OK.

I disagree. I find it lacking in morals. Go invent your own tooling language, or better yet, agree on a standard. But drop-in clone replacement without so much as a by-your-leave is a douche move.

Time of Intermediate free-form descriptions

[goose-incarnated]

I wonder when someone is going to write a free-form written-language parser that will read in a carefully worded english description and spit out a header file. Then you can have your own description as a paragraph of poetry, which generates headers internally as part of the compilation process. This would make the whole problem of "illegal to have compatible interface" problem go away.

Re:Time of Intermediate free-form descriptions

[qbast]

Sounds like extension of BDD.

Re:Time of Intermediate free-form descriptions

[goose-incarnated]

Sounds like extension of BDD.

What's BDD?

Re:Time of Intermediate free-form descriptions

[all204]

Business Driven Development. The little I know is you write out in English the business rules you need a piece of software to operate on. Then you program around these requirements. I mainly see it in testing/QA right now and it's my only experience with it. Those business requirements get compiled into a class with empty method that I fill in and test the dev code with. Basically unit testing but at a higher level that covers the business rules. I'm working with SpecFlow right now if you're curious. http://www.specflow.org/

Re:Time of Intermediate free-form descriptions

[Darinbob]

My business rules I want some software to operate upon:

1) gather underwear
2) ???
3) Profit!

Another stupid patent case

[laserhead]

Really tired of your sh*t, human.

I using Aldec Riviera simulator

[hippo]

The script commands are eerily similar to Modelsim (now owned by Mentor Graphics)

Re:I using Aldec Riviera simulator

[Anonymous Coward]

If two products are trying to do similar things, it's very likely that they will have similar interfaces! Having the interfaces be the same is a huge convenience for the user. They can switch tools without learning new commands or rejiggering their scripts. As an example in an area where I'm more familiar, the Intel compiler can emulate the Microsoft compiler or GCC. You just replace the path in your build script and start using the Intel compiler. No other changes. Of course it also means there's no "lock in" but it cuts both ways.

Lookout WINE

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is probably watching this eagerly.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

All that matters is that juries are told they must only consider the law and evidence provided, and the LAW insists that imaginary things are really owned.

It's why your system is entirely fucked.

Worse, it's a common system, and, yes, it's completely fucked there too.

Re:Unfortunately, it doesn't matter.

[Immerman]

So then lets spread the word. Juries are there to impose, to the best of their ability, justice, not law. They are the final safeguard against a legal system run amok. Yes, they are commonly informed that they must only consider the evidence and the law, but that's a lie - if that was all that was needed we could just appoint a few more judges and do away with the jury entirely. But jury nullification has a long history with many proud moments that helped make this country what it is. Also some dark ones, admittedly, but in those cases I really doubt the jury was pursuing justice anyway.

Re:Unfortunately, it doesn't matter.

[Darinbob]

Technically, juries are there only to decide on the facts. For instance, the jury can't find someone guilty of murder if the charges were for breaking and entering, the jury is there to decide that matter before them (guilty or not guilty of the stated charges). The judge is allowed to decide if evidence is admissible or not, and other issues of whether something is lawful or not. This is for *criminal* trials as per the sixth amendment to the constitution. The juries in nullification don't actually overturn a law but they do make the law moot if enough juries refuse to convict on a particular law.

Unfortunately there's not a lot of legal framework regarding civil trials in the constitution, and this particular case is a civil matter. Jury nullification in civil trials are very rare because the framework is different. For instance there's no constitutional requirement for a jury trial in civil cases.

In any event, intellectual property law is so byzantine that the average jury is baffled by it all. Whereas any set of professional judges well versed in intellectual property laws are biased.

Sockets are patentable...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... Socket/plug connections are patentable so I'm not bothered that APIs can be copyrighted.
That a copyrighted API lasts 5 times as long as the hardware patent bothers me.
(Legislator: "That's a good point we'll increase the length of the patents to match!
Me: "no no No!!!!")

Re:Sockets are patentable...

[Gr8Apes]

If we could use the argument that copyright should be reduced to less than 20 years, I'm all for it. The only one that would really be "hurt" by such shortening is Disney, honestly.

This Just In

[Anonymous Coward]

A copyright infringement case is up before in East Texas alleging that parrots infringe on the human copyright of speech. The defense wanted to bring in specialists to discuss convergent evolution, but the judge said, "I don't see what a bunch of biologists has to do with copyright law."

So API don't matter

[goombah99]

If you beleive anything you might have learned in computer science surely it is that spending time to get the API right is the most important thing. populating the implementation of the sub sections defined by the API is the work you give to the C-students. You let the A-students come define the interface. The API is the most valuable part of the whole

Re:So API don't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

If you beleive anything you might have learned in computer science surely it is that spending time to get the API right is the most important thing. populating the implementation of the sub sections defined by the API is the work you give to the C-students. You let the A-students come define the interface. The API is the most valuable part of the whole

The API is no doubt important. Your post reads as possibly sarcasm, but either way, the implementation is at least as important. Screw that up, and your API means nothing. Also, your API will reflect what your code actually does. Even the best engineer is likely not going to see deeply enough to build a perfect API the first time. Actual coding is very likely to cause revisions to the API that better reflect how things should be, once the problem can be better understood.

All that being said, none of this addresses the original question. Should APIs be copyrightable? Sure, they arguably are a creative work, but if you allow a copyright on that aspect of a creative work, such that it cannot be duplicated you cause monopoly situations which are not in favour of the world at large. Think of the Java thing, by not allowing someone to write a compatible API, it means that everything Java would go back to one corporation that can just rake in the bucks, because writing a completely new API breaks everyone else's work and requires a almost total rewrite.

Basically allowing API's to be copies is, imnsho, a reasonable fair use exception. Interoperability is more important than another multinationals profit.

Re:So API don't matter

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The API is no doubt important. Your post reads as possibly sarcasm, but either way, the implementation is at least as important. Screw that up, and your API means nothing.

You can fix an implementation yourself. You can't fix the dozen applications that already use a bad API. So you have to keep it around. Meaning that more people will keep misusing it in the future. To me, merely having to fix an implementation definitely seems like the more desirable problem of the two. Just look at some of the most memorable interface screwups: null pointers, C strings...

Re:So API don't matter

[Immerman]

As I recall, copyright actually has an exception carved out for functionality - you can copyright the aesthetic components of a work, but *not* the functional ones. And I think most programmers will agree that the API falls firmly in the functional category - it must be adhered to exactly for interoperability.

Re:So API don't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple Solution (tm) ::

An API should have the same legal standing / status as a music song or movie title.

Sadly, more and more I find jurors threatened to apply the law in their decision. That is not
their job. Their job is to apply common sense and be the gatekeepers against egregious
laws in our society. A juror can be jailed in the U.S. for mentioning William C. Goodloe's name.
The fact that a juror can be criminally prosecuted for the execution of their duty is very sad -
yes, there have been cases - look them up.

CAP === 'childish' == really, that's what it was!

Re:So API don't matter

[bondsbw]

Copyrighting an API is like copyrighting a wheel hub on a car, and then suing a wheel manufacturer that creates a wheel for that hub. Or, copyrighting the design of a seat and then suing anyone who makes custom covers.

I feel like this is so obvious and has been solved for a long time, but because it is "for a computer" then all rules go out the window and we have to start over and do it stupidly this time.

Re:So API don't matter

[stabiesoft]

Feel free to try to write a state of the art timing engine. I think you will be shocked to find that writing the API is trivial compared to the engine. I'm in EDA and I can tell you from experience, P&R engines, timing engines, synthesis, formal verification, physical verification and simulators are all very very hard problems. The A++ list people write them.

Re:So API don't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You can fix an implementation yourself. You can't fix the dozen applications that already use a bad API.

Yes you can. It's called refactoring. Anything can be changed, it's just software.

So you have to keep it around. Meaning that more people will keep misusing it in the future.

No I don't. I refactor the dozen applications, and I delete the interface.

To me, merely having to fix an implementation definitely seems like the more desirable problem of the two.

That's usually impossible. At least with procedural programming, functional programming or object oriented programming. The interface defines the order of invocation of your implementation, and getting around that results in creating absurd state trackers, and other things that are worse than doing it the right way.

Just look at some of the most memorable interface screwups: null pointers, C strings...

That there's nothing wrong with either of those two things tells me you are not a programmer, but one of those kids that just runs along with programmers casually imagining what they do without any understanding, and never attempting programming yourself.

Re:So API don't matter

[Darinbob]

No, the A students should do the real work. Do not leave to C students to screw up the implemention. The people most slavish to following an API tend to be the C student types anyway, since once they have their holy scriptures then the burden of having to think is removed.

I agree though that you don't want some hack creating the API because it has long term consequences. It's easier to start a new project from scratch than it is to change an API. But an API should also be very fluid during design and first implementation stages because it is utterly impossible to know what the final product and requirements are before you start coding (despite all protests to the contrary from the C students). You buy some parts out of a fixed budget then find that the parts don't work as advertised and you *must* change how things work to accomodate. Only a C student would think that you can predict the future and that it's ok to carve the API into stone.

If your team are the only ones using the API then it is not the most valuable part. Change it if it makes the product work better, or makes the implementation possible in the first place, or completely replace it if it's not working out. The only time an API is more important is if you're working across teams or companies and there's no ability to coordinate changes easily; but even then it should always be allowed to abandon the API and create API version 2, or amend the API if both parties agree.

Re:So API don't matter

[Darinbob]

You can fix the bad APIs, or bypass them, amend them, work around them, etc. One big problem is that the people most likely to make the API and turn it into an unchangeable set of holy scriptures are often the people least able to do actual implementation. They'll insist on ridiculous things like all accesses to variables must be through getters/setters, or all libraries and objects must be acquired through cumbersome methods involving UUIDs rather than passing a simple pointer. These people tend to be slaves to the Design Patterns, slaves to the process, and unable to do any implementation anyway.

Re:So API don't matter

[Darinbob]

Agreed. C strings are a *great* API, even if the modern generation of web heads don't like them. C++ strings are a step back from clean and simple interfaces, and giant leaps backwards for mankind once they turned them into templates instead of classes, not to mention bloatware.

Re:So API don't matter

[Darinbob]

The problem is that the original creator of the API does not want it to be used for interoperability in this case. They want the API for their own use or for customers to integrate with their own libraries, they don't want some third party to use the API to replace their libraries with competing versions.

Whether their stance is correct or not, I think that copyright law is being used only because the APIs are written down rather than copyright law being inherently applicable in such disputes.

Re:So API don't matter

[Darinbob]

The wheel hub is not copyrighted, but the textual description of how to create a wheel hub with the right dimensions. Copyright law I think is being misused in this case. There really is not a good set of laws or legal principles regarding the disputes here, one side basically wants to protect their market, the other side wants to sell their product as better and interoperable. The fact that the rules for interoperability must be copied in order to do this in software is what allows copyright laws to be invoked. So in the automotive world the same disputes may arise but they can't prevent third parties from having compatible wheels, and if they try to disallow it they can be slapped by the courts for inhibiting competition unfairly, but in the software world they can fall back to copyright law to allow them to maintain their market share.

Re:So API don't matter

[Darinbob]

Which tends to be the polar opposite of modern programming style in major corporations. People spend tons of time on the API for very simple minded implementations. Designs may consist of a google search to find a set of libraries that already do the job. The APIs rise to the level of utmost importance because implementation in many companies has devolved to the point of connecting one pre-built interface to another pre-built interface.

Re:So API don't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You can fix the bad APIs, or bypass them, amend them, work around them, etc. One big problem is that the people most likely to make the API and turn it into an unchangeable set of holy scriptures are often the people least able to do actual implementation. They'll insist on ridiculous things like all accesses to variables must be through getters/setters, or all libraries and objects must be acquired through cumbersome methods involving UUIDs rather than passing a simple pointer. These people tend to be slaves to the Design Patterns, slaves to the process, and unable to do any implementation anyway.

Yep, I'm familiar with that kind of developer. I just hope I'm never dropped into the middle of another project with one of them. Like it or not, there is no magic software design process that makes a complex unrealistic wish list a reality in a highly compressed time span. Being told your basically stupid because you can't meet the arbitrary schedule is great fun, particularly when the bulk of the task was on your plate. It was, however, amusing to see him deliver incomplete functionality a month late, after he got back what he said was an easy task that he could breeze through.

Re:So API don't matter

[Immerman]

Shouldn't matter - the entire purpose of an API is to allow for interoperability between a library and the software using it - it's a functional component, and thus should not be eligible for copyright protection. Only the aesthetic aspects can be copyrighted, so... white space and comments I guess?

Re:So API don't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, they're great - if you're stuck in the '80s with ASCII and don't mind doing lots of fiddly memory management by hand when you modify them...

Re:So API don't matter

[niftymitch]

You can fix the bad APIs, or bypass them, amend them, work around them, etc. ....

In part this is the value of hypertext and CGI.
An interface bridges A to B and perhaps back.
It can invoke functionality in a chaotic arrangement line an adventure game
or it can organize the steps into a smooth sane flow.
The concept of this abstraction is not unique to HTML and the web.

Commonly an engineer will craft an interface that matches the
outline of the design specification documentation. It facilitates
check off and testing but stinks as a user interface.
The user interface people can change a quirky or error prone interface
and make customers happy with a product yet change
zero functionality.

The same hypertext reorganizing markup mentality can also apply to an API.

Re:So API don't matter

[macraig]

Completely off-topic... recall how you told me 3 years ago that you were beginning to mod Skyrim? Last year I finally got the game. Where do I find your efforts?

Re:So API don't matter

[Immerman]

Sadly my primary mod was repeatedly broken by game updates, and I ended up abandoning Skyrim in disgust. My girlfriend has been considering starting a game though, so that may be enough to get me to add the final polish to some of the less ambitious mods in the next few months.

Re:So API don't matter

[macraig]

The era of Bethesda updates to the game are probably over, don't you think? :-) The game code is static and Skyrim modding is as hot as ever right now; check out the activity at NexusMods. There's even a mod to add client-server co-op play to the game... imagine playing the game in the same worldspace as your girlfriend! I just bought a new 4GB graphics card to allow a new level of texture-happy modded gameplay, and I have about 1000 mods to consider and whittle down to the allowed 255....

Re:So API don't matter

[Immerman]

Yea, but once lost, momentum on a project is difficult to regain. Still, perhaps it's time to revisit it. Co-op you say? Is it working reliably?

Re:So API don't matter

[macraig]

I haven't tried it but once, and that was early on when it was buggy, then Nexus Mod Manager got a controversial upgrade and it destroyed my game completely. I haven't had a chance to test it since. Now that I have the new graphics card I'm planning on starting over. The Tamriel Online co-op mod will demand revisiting because I'm married now and my wife also plays (she got me into it).

No, let's pattent atoms

[ziggystarsky]

I patent hydrogen. Now it's your turn

But don't you dare to patent elementary particles! This would ruin the fun of patenting atoms, and I can't have my hydrogen.

And don't complain that you wanted to patent molecules before I had the idea of patenting atoms! That's not how the game's supposed to be played

Re:No, let's pattent atoms

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but your patent on hydrogen clearly incorporates elements of our patents covering fractional electric charge (pertaining to both up and down quarks), and aspects of a general patent covering gauge bosons (gluons in particular). Your flagrant use of the "proton" in your design stands in direct violation of our intellectual property rights.

Reasonable licensing is available. Please respond to this post for additional details.

Re:No, let's pattent atoms

[gnupun]

I patent hydrogen. Now it's your turn

LOL, you can't patent things found in nature. Try harder, Mr. anti-patent troll.

Utility patents protect the core concepts behind a man-made invention. If a human being creates an invention, he/she owns it, not you, not leeches, not nature and not the government.

Re:No, let's pattent atoms

[Rakarra]

If a human being creates an invention, he/she owns it, not you, not leeches, not nature and not the government.

A patent is necessarily a government intervention. It's a prevention of someone else doing the same labor, even if he came about it independently.

interface patenting is incredibly dangerous

[lkcl]

there was an amicus brief signed by nearly a hundred software libre supporters: i read it, and they missed some really, really important very dangerous examples of how copyrighting interfaces destroys both proprietary and libre software *and hardware* business models.

* assembly instructions. assembly instructions *are* the "interface" between the hardware and the software. if assembly instructions themselves become copyrighted - a restricted form of of free speech if you will - then we are hopelessly screwed. software distributors - any software - presently being sold (or given away as libre binaries) WORLDWIDE - would need all of a sudden to contact the *PROCESSOR* designers to gain their permission in order to continue distribution of what was previously recognised as legal and covered under free speech laws.

* the GPL, LGPL, AGPL, and all other software licenses whether they be proprietary or libre, would need to be updated in order to explicitly grant permission to use the APIs that were previously recognised as "free speech" [code, under precedent, is recognised as being "speech"]. in cases where changing the license is *NOT POSSIBLE* such as with the GPLv2 on the linux kernel, the problem becomes extremely serious. for those people not familiar with the problem of the GPLv2 license on the linux kernel: it's GPLv2 not GPLv2+, and, given that there are several thousand individual copyright holders - each and every one of whom needs to be contacted and EXPLICITLY asked if they agree to the license change, you start to understand how flat-out impossible that is. especially given that some of those people will have died, or changed name, or will have been working for companies at the time and so on. so all of a sudden, given that it would not be possible to update the license, and given that the license would no longer cover APIs within the copyrighted work of the linux kernel, the burden is on the END-USER to request permission of the copyright-holders - all of them - for the requisite permission... and thus we are completely fucked because the exact same problem occurs, in contacting and tracking down thousands of people. remember: if you can't *get* permission, you must cease and desist from use of the software, otherwise you are acting in a criminal capacity.

* RPC mechanisms. (remote procedure calls). all and any RPC interfaces - by virtue of *being* interfaces - would become copyrighted. this would entirely defeat the extremely protracted and lengthy ground-breaking work by which the samba team members managed - over many years - to persuade the EU to compel microsoft to release their IDL files for interoperability purposes. if it now becomes necessary for each and every end-user as well as developer to contact microsoft and ask their permission to use their suddenly-copyrighted interfaces.... what do you think is going to happen?

* Silicon Chips - even just *buying* a chip would be problematic as its "interfaces" would be copyrighted. we have enough problems as it is with NDAs and being unable to get hold of datasheets: what do you think would happen if the sellers of ICs suddenly started enforcing license agreements and copyright enforcement agreements because the pins of the chip were considered to be "interfaces" and thus "controlled"? supply via distributors - especially smaller ones - would be sent into absolute chaos.

the most amazing thing is that i was actually contacted by someone who claimed that there were *supporters* in the software libre community of copyrighting of interfaces, because it would somehow strengthen the effects of the GPL. as such copyrighting is in effect an extremely dangerous restriction of "freedom of speech" (because it effectively terminates your free unrestricted right to "talk" in the "language" of the "interface"), any such perceived "benefits" are utterly smashed by the total chaos that the entire world - with its now heavy-dependence on software and hardware - would be thrown into.

i just... i'm completely blown away that there are intelligent people out there who do not understand how utterly insane the concept of API copyrighting really is.

Re:interface patenting is incredibly dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one who does not understand.

*Using* an interface is not copying it. Makers of ICs would use interface copyright against manufacturers of clones, not against purchasers of the IC.

Re:interface patenting is incredibly dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

If they think the boundary between "mine" and "yours" is subject to legislation, they're already too far gone.

Re:interface patenting is incredibly dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one who does not understand.

You're the vulgarian, you fuck.
;-)

Re:interface patenting is incredibly dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm completely blown away that there are intelligent people out there who do not understand how utterly insane the concept of API copyrighting really is.

It might be helpful to phrase it using an analogy they can understand:

It's basically like being able to copyright the individual words of the English language.

Each English word constitutes an "interface" (if you will) to an idea. Every function name in an API is directly analogous to an English word -- and in fact, it is often expressed in high level software using an English word.

Every function call with arguments is analogous to a short phrase in English -- for example "turn off motor #3". Is it reasonable for someone to hold the copyright to the English phrase "turn off motor #3"? If not, then it should also be unreasonable for someone to hold the copyright to the software function call "motor[3].turn_off( )".

When interoperability requires infringement

[tepples]

And watch developers and publishers of free software get sued for patent infringement or copyright infringement for having reimplemented elements essential to interoperating with instances of the incumbent proprietary product or service operated by users who have not yet embraced free software. Though Replicant OS is free software, Google (developer of the Android Open Source Project that forms the basis of Replicant OS) still lost to Oracle.

Re:When interoperability requires infringement

[GLMDesigns]

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with copyright laws. There are many.

I don't think the solution is to eliminate them. They have a place.

My quick solution for copyright infringement lawsuits as per technology is to involve a more technologically literate audience - and many lawyers and judges will not be comfortable with that as many are innumerate and proudly so. (I have sat in many court rooms as a landlord and for business.) As a result the judges involved will need to be technologically literate (a formal education in STEM as well as law.)

Let's all have crappy computers!

[headkase]

Remember way back when at the dawn of the PC era? When Tandy clean-room reversed engineered IBM's BIOS? That led directly, directly, to the PC as an open-platform. If the PC wasn't open, and therefore became the de-facto standard, then very arguably we would be stuck with crappy machines right now because innovation would have been dead. IBM would have had a strangle-hold on their implementation and if you didn't like their MicroBUS then you could build your own complete architecture. Copyrighting API's sounds good to non-technical people but people in the know know that it is the death-knell for advancement. The specific implementation deserves copyright but API's, and various implementations of them, are what foster competition and therefore better stuff, faster.

Re:Let's all have crappy computers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac's don't use an x86 BIOS, they have used OpenFirmware for a very long time (at least since the PPC 601, unsure if it existed along with the ROM in the 680x0 machines). IBM (AIX) and Sun (SPARc Stations) also use OpenFirmware.

CoreBoot is basically Linux redone as the BIOS. MSI uses it in many of their motherboards. There are others.

Re:Let's all have crappy computers!

[headkase]

The point I gave is the culmination of an effect over the span of 35+ years.

Re:Let's all have crappy computers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs use EFI. They haven't used Open Firmware in 10 years.

Jury

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the jury was loaded with software developers and EE's. A jury of their peers lol. It was a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

This isn't bad if interoperability is fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.eff.org/issues/cod... This really seems that it could lead to a good outcome. Why shouldn't an interface be subject to copyright. Some interfaces are really ingenious. If its copyright, then there's no risk to somebody who comes up with a similar solution to the same problem. And if exceptions for interoperability are allowed it solves most of the ugliness. It doesn't help Google vs Sun since the goal wasn't interoperabilty. But it may resolve this case.

Re:This isn't bad if interoperability is fair use

[Pieroxy]

An interface is very akin to a language. It defines a set of rules by which two entities (two programs in this case) can communicate. It's the same with natural languages. Then ask yourself: Is it possible to copyright Esperanto? If so, what happens when someone copyrights English ?

Interfaces define the way we can express ourselves.

Re:This isn't bad if interoperability is fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

> Then ask yourself: Is it possible to copyright Esperanto?

Interesting that you should use that as an example, since Esperanto succeeded (for certain values of 'succeed') over Schleyer's Volapük in no small part thanks to Zamenhof relinquishing all claims to ownership of the language, where Schleyer tried to maintain absolute control over his language.

Code is speech

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the EFF, code is speech. Speech is copyrightable. Code is copyrightable. Good thing that the SCO lawsuit has wounded down.

Don't freak out

[American Patent Guy]

Yes, an interface is covered by copyright, but it is also covered by the fair use and implied license doctrines. The fair use doctrine is (in the U.S.) a statutory right of the public to use a copyrighted work that is "fair". If you bought a movie on VHS (years ago), for example, you can convert it to DVD format for your own use without paying the publisher a second time. You don't get to redistribute the movie to others, because that would impair the publisher's ability to obtain payment in the market and is not "fair".

The implied license doctrine creates a legal (judicially-created) right and comes about from the way in which a work is distributed. The web code delivered to your browser to read this page is a good example. When you submit an HTTP query for this page, the server delivers a copy of my words and a copy of the web code your browser interprets to display them. By submitting a comment, I have given the world an implied license to have those words copied to your computer, and Slashdot has given an implied license for the web code to your browser.

The interface here is used to operate either a machine or a software package, which machine or package was purchased for a particular purpose. The interface must be used to operate it, and therefore the supplier gave an implied license to copy those parts of it needed to make it operable. Using the interface would probably also be considered fair, if the machine or package was not copied.

These are old issues in the legal system ... move along.

Re:Don't freak out

[jd]

Linux uses AT&T-defined interfaces. I do NOT want that court case revived.

Wow, a brand new kind of case...

[whitroth]

Nothing at *all* like Lotus 1-2-3 vs. Borland, in the eighties....

                mark

You won't be allowed to tell them.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you tell them in the court, you will be found in contempt, if you are a jury member and tell them you can get contempt, if you try to post it up in prominent places, they will be removed and if you try to get it through the legislature, it will be quashed.

the API is no more than a customer spec.

[Anonymous Coward]

It merely tells you what you are supposed to do, there's no expressive content at all. Unless you want directions or your manager's requests to you to be copyrightable, this would be fucking stupid bollocks.

So what function does it do?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I define the function API as "give me an integer and I will wait that number of seconds then return either the seconds lapsed or negative seconds lapsed if there was an interrupt", BUT WRITE NO CODE, what does it do?

Fuck all.

Describing a car is an API. Building the car is the functional bit, just as writing the goddamned code is.

You're the one who doesn't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one who does not understand.

*Using* an interface is not copying it. Makers of ICs would use interface copyright against manufacturers of clones, not against purchasers of the IC.

Actually, you're the one who doesn't understand.

The moment an interface is copied from a storage medium (firmware, disk, ssd, whatever) into memory, you've "violated" copyright. So pretty much any computing device that makes use of the interface will be in violation if this juries utter stupidity is allowed to stand.

Re:You're the one who doesn't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

"...it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided ... that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine"

  - 17 U.S. Code 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

Didn't they already decide this in the Lotus case?

[jonwil]

I dont know the specifics of this particular case but didn't they already decide that user interfaces aren't protected by copyright in the Lotus vs Borland case?

Or is there more to this case than just menu options and stuff?

Appeals unlikely. 9th circuit court already ruled.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle vs Google... It went to the 9th circuit court which that cloning a interface does fall under infringement. Google filed for a higher appeal and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. All courts under the 9th circuit MUST follow it's ruling. If you've cloned a copyrighted API or Interface know you have broken the law and if the owner wants to prosecute it would be a very low risk litigation for them.

That is totally whack

[Anonymous Coward]

The finding is equivalent to saying: Operating system X implements the command DIR to list files, so no other operating system can implement a DIR command without violating copyright.

Let's apply this to libraries in software development: let's say a library author defines a bunch of interfaces (interfaces are automatically public by definition, you cannot have an interface defined as internal, protected nor private) and then the parameters to all of the library's methods are instances of those interfaces. In order to use those library methods the consumer has to provide a class implementing the declared interface. Hang on a minute! Interfaces are copyright - you cannot use the library without violating copyright! What's the point of that?