undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnodamage5y ago0 comments

Can you clarify how you think Baker applies here? The underlying point from that case is that an accounting method is an idea and copyright protection does not extend to ideas, only specific expressions of that idea. I'm not sure the situation here is all that similar.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

andrewjl5y ago· 2 in thread

> Can you clarify how you think Baker applies here?

"The conclusion to which we have come is, that blank account-books are not the subject of copyright; and that the mere copyright of Selden's book did not confer upon him the exclusive right to make and use account-books, ruled and arranged as designated by him and described and illustrated in said book." [1]

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/

My reading is that the mere use of an API is a method of practice. It does not matter if the API is simple or complex, in the same as it didn't matter if a single page or multiple pages of account templates were used.

nodamageOP5y ago

> My reading is that the mere use of an API is a method of practice.

The problem is Google didn't merely use the API, it reproduced the API entirely and necessarily copied several thousand lines of code in the process. Code itself is generally copyrightable so it is difficult to argue that the specific type of code that makes up the Java API declaration is exempt from this.

andrewjl5y ago

Apologies, I didn't express myself well when writing that. I meant that all API code is embodied practice. Thus API code itself is in no way different from ledger templates at issue in Baker.

Reproduction of an API in its entirety is no different from reproduction of an embedded practice. Any arguments I've seen so far that argued for parts of API code not being embedded practice were not taking into account how API code is used by software engineers.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse