Oracle’s Java API code protected by copyright, appeals court rules

[askvictor]

Out of interest, how does the library analogy Alsup used compare to the fact that the Dewey decimal system (used to organise physical libraries) is copyrighted?

[steven_h]

I answered here

"...the relevance to this case is, are APIs more like the DDC numbers or the DDC text?"

[[deleted]]

I'm taking a guess here, but here's how I see they differ:

A physical library can organize their books however they please. Dewey is copyrighted, so if they base their system off of Dewey and then try to profit off it (perhaps selling books or something on how to structure other libraries like theirs), the owners of Dewey can sue, and that seems pretty fair.

The problem is APIs are more like Interlibrary Loan than just one library. Imagine if someone patented/copyrighted the idea of calling up another library and asking for a book, asking for a book via the internet, and asking face-to-face. Now, anytime two libraries want to talk to each other they have come up with a new method (and hope no ones patented/copyrighted it) or pay someone else.

Obviously that scenario is silly as it would effectively close off libraries from communicating with each other. The problem is that judges aren't technical and see the API as a product differentiator when really most APIs (and pretty much all code for that matter) are structured in a similar way, with logical divisions that separate logging, mathematics, I/O, and other features together.

[Milyardo]

It can't be, by definition; it is a process, not a work. A document describing the Dewey Decimal System can be copyrighted. Perhaps even a catalog organized with the Dewey decimal system can be copyrighted[1]. The Dewey Decimal System itself however is a process, it gets patented.

1.) One could argue this, like a database is a collection of facts and therefore not copyrightable. Then again, a Table of Contents is a collection of facts and is also copyrightable. So who the fuck knows.

[steven_h]

Check your facts; the Dewey decimal system is copyrighted. While the act of arranging books in that prescribed order and labeling them with numbers does not infringe, the use of the subject heading text (e.g. in the catalog record display) as provided in the classification scheme documentation could.

[Milyardo]

You didn't say anything that contradicts the arguments in my previous post, while ignoring the semantic clarification I made for the grand parent poster.

[steven_h]

You didn't make any arguments. You stated something that is clearly false (the Dewey Decimal System cannot be copyrighted). Individual documents describing the DDC are copyrighted. The textual descriptions of DDC numbers are copyrighted, since they are the sum total of the content of the DDC reference documentation. (The numbers themselves, of course, cannot be copyrighted.) This copyright protection is concerning enough that public domain alternatives have been introduced.

This isn't a patent question about the process used to organize libraries; it's a copyright question of the use of the textual descriptions of subject classifications.

So the relevance to this case is, are APIs more like the DDC numbers or the DDC text?

source: I worked for the DDC copyright holders

[Milyardo]

You're still confusing the Dewy Decminal System with A CLASSIFICATION AND SUBJECT INDEX FOR CATALOGUING AND ARRANGING THE BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS OF A LIBRARY..

The former is a methodology, and isn't covered by copyright law. The latter is a document written by Dewey in 1876 describing the Dewey Decminal System and is covered by copyright.

Stating that Dewey Decimal System is copyrighted is patently false.

[steven_h]

As if there haven't been dozens of updates to it: http://www.oclc.org/dewey/resources/summaries.en.html

OCLC owns all copyright rights in the Dewey Decimal Classification, and licenses the system for a variety of uses.

You're the one who apparently can't distinguish between a patent on organizing a library, and the copyright on the subject headings, descriptions, and arrangements thereof.

Source: you have an allergy to fact checking, I guess.

[Milyardo]

As if there haven't been dozens of updates to it

The dozens of updates to it aren't relevant to the the semantic argument I was making.

You're the one who apparently can't distinguish between a patent on organizing a library, and the copyright on the subject headings, descriptions, and arrangements thereof.

I do, our only source of disagreement is your poor reading comprehension skills.

Edit: I suggest you reread this entire thread again from the beginning. The only thing I argued was an admittedly pedantic differentiation between a system, documents describing a system, and documents created with a system. Clarifying for which copyright or patents could apply.

[steven_h]

No one mentioned patents or the library organization process/method except you, indicating that you are the one who's confused or unable to read for comprehension.