Preventing the reimplementation of APIs is not the way to dethrone Google; this is one instance where we fall on the same side.
Mostly it will impact small projects - an open source implementation of an API would constitute a copyright violation, an open source reader of game data (eg all those game implementation that depend on the game data of a legitimate copy) would also be potentially subject to the same copyright violations.
In fact it would be very difficult for any open source project to read any proprietary format, without being subject to copyright violation suits.
What it definitely shouldn't be is copyrighted, the class of IP that's made for stuff like novels and paintings, where the protection is automatic and lasts until 90 years after your death.
It helps nobody to have to wait until 2150 to write an interface for Java.
APIs are nearly identical to code in terms of what they are, it's very reasonable to apply the same copyright rules.
I don't really agree, except to say that, sure, there's a good argument that code is purely functional (in the sense of “providing function”, not the programming paradigm), too. But copyrightability of code isn't the issue in this case.
Oracle is trying to claim that they own the idea of a toolbox with a tool called a "screwdriver", a tool called a "hammer", and a tool called "wire cutters", and nobody is allowed to make their own toolbox using the same list of names of tools.
I don't know how anyone who's written code could even say this.
APIs have comments, they are expressive, there is considerable choice in design and they are a 'list of names' the same as the list of names attached to variables.
"The decision to have a function called `sqrt` and put it in a module called `math` is not creative, and it is definitely not artistic."
Yes, it absolutely is, in the sense that literally any arbitrary sentence or gibberish that I write is creative and copyrightable.
I can copyright: "Blahdy Blady Blady Blah" right now.
API design is as creative as any other part of the code.
The question is an API a significantly creative work, vs the implementation.
Historically - because the entire modern world depends on it - APIs were not considered copyrightable, largely because the creativity is embodied by the implementation.
You clearly disagree, I am curious if you believe being able to have competing software was detrimental - for example say MS claimed copyright over the XMLHttpRequest API? Or google over search engine query API, etc
Letters are part of a novel, do you think that authors have a copyright to the letters that they use?
By all accounts thats an “interface” for a screw to be driven in by a screw driver.
However i hope the court doesnt rule in Oracles favor.
> By all accounts thats an “interface” for a screw to be driven in by a screw driver.
As a functional component, to the extent novel and otherwise eligible for patent, patent protection for APIs makes perfect sense; patents also have an extremely short duration compared to essentially-eternal copyrights.
API copyrightability is, aside from being inconsistent (IMO) with both the letter and intent of the law, an absolutely nightmare in practical terms because it has neither the novelty requirements nor the short term associated with patents.
With software the interface is a trivial detail that anyone could come up with. One interface is as good as any other. It seems disingenuous if the owner of one interface that suddenly became popular tries to claim copyright after everyone starts using it.