decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Observation on API Analogies | 237 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Observation on API Analogies
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )