On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
phil hunt wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
Hi!
In Europe APIs are not copyright able.
No idea about the US.
However if you publich them in a book, the book of course is
copyrighted.
However you can not
Hi all!
Rod Dixon wrote:
Those are very good thoughts, if I may say so.
Rod
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
I am not sure I see how 102(b) should exclude APIs from copyrightable
subject matter as an absolute matter. Surely some aspects of an API may
fail because of
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection
Finally, one CAN use trademark law -- with all its strengths and
weaknesses -- to
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Even if a company were to argue successfully that its API is *both*
expressive and substantive, and thus protectible as copyrightable subject
matter, I would argue that access to the API for the purpose of preparing
independent (compatible or
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
Hi!
In Europe APIs are not "copyright able".
No idea about the US.
However if you publich them in a book, the book of course is
copyrighted.
However you can not prevent anyone to write a software against a given
API.
Same is true for data
This is the issue I was hinting at. I do not believe that as a general
matter that APIs should be copyrightable under U.S. copyright law since
section 102(b) of the Copyright Act should exclude APIs from copyright
subject matter. Having said that, I admit the issue seems unresolved since
both
I doubt whether we will resolve the copyrightability question. I think the
better view is that an API is not copyrightable subject matter. I also
think that viewing an API as such better serves the purposes of copyright
law. Even so, I agree that the more important question is if you assume
that
Those are very good thoughts, if I may say so.
Rod
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
I am not sure I see how 102(b) should exclude APIs from copyrightable
subject matter as an absolute matter. Surely some aspects of an API may
fail because of various doctrines such as merger,
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
Do you have any basis for the "better" view? Also, how does it better
serve the purposes of copyright?
Well, I said I *THINK* the better view is... In other words, I was
expressing an opinion. The reason why I think it is the better view is
because
I have a slightly different question about API's and copyrights.
Suppose one
has an API that acts as a specification for access to a library
and perhaps
a sample implementation. I dont care if someone creates another
implementation of the API, in fact I want to encourage other people to do
10 matches
Mail list logo
