|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
Because, in practice, cloning an API has been rarely used as
a means for successful competition, especially in recent
years. So even if this option is taken off the table and no
one is allowed to clone an API (except in cases where the
original author expressly allows it, which will happen in
many cases), competition will not be restricted. To me,
saying that cloning APIs will hinder competition is not that
much different from saying disallowing copying of
documentation hinders competition (and cloning an API
basically makes writing books and documentation largely
unnecessary). Yeah, it makes the competitors work a little
harder, but it does not hurt their chances of success.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
It could be all APIs ever written.
APIs (or rather,
their SSO, which is at issue here) have always been
copyrightable (well at
least, since the Johnson Controls case, which Google
has been unable to
properly address despite Judge Alsup bringing it up
frequently.) Also, no less
than Stallman seems to think APIs are covered by
copyright (look into the whole
"readline/CLISP" kerfuffle.) As
biased as Florian Mueller is, and as much as
people here like to disparage
him, his legal analysis is pretty good.
Groklaw, on the other hand, I find useful only for discovering issues
Meuller
"forgets" to report about, and then looking at the actual documents
posted.
The commentary (and comments) here are as biased as Florian's is, only
in the
opposite direction and minus the reasoned legal analysis.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|