You point is valid about the "but they have a right to do X". I think it does provide good discussion however.

My point wasn't so much that they have the right to do that, but more about when your playing with another company's API don't expect to disrupt them.

Choose a start-up that is already successfully and profitably using a company's API and make your service even better. AKA don't compete with the mothership.

How far do you take this?

If Microsoft decides tomorrow to say "if you want to write Free/Open Source Software, you can't use our API's" do they have a right to do so? What if it is competing with Microsoft software, i.e, "no use of our API's to build competing web browsers and office software" or the like?

I am genuinely asking because I think it's as clear a line as one might think.

Yes, they have the right to do so. It might be a bad idea for them to do it, but being their APIs they most certainly have the right to do that. Microsoft has no obligation to provide services to their competition free of charge just because someone out there feels it is the right thing to do. Of course, various court systems may disagree with me considering it is Microsoft.

The line is clear, the source of the service has the right to do whatever they want with it. Unless you want to claim that a company's property belongs to the people.

first of all, I am not sure they do have that right. Certainly if they tried, it would open up questions of the scope of user rights (do I, as a user have the right to run add-on software on a Microsoft platform independent of Microsoft's wishes), the scope of copyright (does 17 USC 102(b) provide a safe harbor for interoperability and prevent a software vendor from using copyrights to deny areas for competition), and the like. And that's before getting into anti-trust law.....

So I think in Microsoft's case I would argue that they have a) no legal or moral right to impose such and b) no effective mechanism to enforce such conditions. They make practical tools, and people may use those tools in whatever ways they see fit. To the extent Microsoft can limit this through a EULA, they are subject to all sorts of judicial scrutiny.

For example, I have a hard time imagining that a "you may not run a web server on this edition of Windows" would be enforcible. Client access license requirements might be in some cases but I don't know what the dimensions are that they would be.

The question with Craigslist only becomes harder because to interoperate you are interacting with Craigslist's infrastructure. This is of course covered arguably by a different set of laws which may give Craigslist a bit more freedom. But we have laws in many states that restrict what, say, shopping malls can require of people entering (a shopping mall in California, for example, cannot prohibit pamphletting).

I would like to see similar rules passed regarding the internet equivalent of shopping malls, to be honest.

I apologize, I should have been more clear. I agree with you about Microsoft and limiting things for third-parties in Windows. They've gone too far to be able to do that, Apple might be able to do it but they're quickly reaching that point with OSX. I was speaking more of APIs that Microsoft might create for various things web-related, as it relates to the story about Craigslist.

You included Craigslist to get pageviews.

Your own linked articles about that topic are a user only complaining about the legal takedown of a useful tool [1] and another complaint about UX with an included blurb asking startups and users to put their time and data into something better [2]. Nothing about API changes or right to a company's proprietary data.

[1] http://blog.garrytan.com/save-padmapper-craigslist-is-wrong-... [2] http://pandodaily.com/2012/05/30/craigslist-is-squashing-inn...

I am not shy to admit that I enjoy having pageviews (although I don't run ads). I could have done some better research and provided a deeper explication of my thoughts. I just saw a connection between three major 'API' controversies lately on HN, and wanted to share my initial thoughts to prompt healthy discussion.

I know I am in the minority, but I happen to think that the central concern of any business ought to be to maximize end-user value. Profits are a means to that end, not the other way around. So I would evaluate the API issue from the perspective of whether it adds value for the user or not, not whether in some myopic accountant's opinion it adds to the "bottom line."