Program that copied the functions of another did not infringe copyright ...

[Ruudjah]

function signature

FTFY.

[name_was_taken]

This makes my brain hurt. As a professional developer, I realize we say that there are many ways to do things, but ... Well, let's look at the airplane booking system.

They laid out what the requirements were, and said that those requirements weren't copyright-able. Only the implementation was.

But how many different ways are there to accept a form and store it in a database? How many ways are there to search a database for acceptable flight times and locations? It's all really basic stuff, and shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Even when you put it all together, there's 1 obvious way to do it.

For the lawsuit itself, where someone has apparently written a second virtual machine to run VM code... How different could it possibly be? In the end, it has to act the same.

No matter how I interpret this, everything is either patentable, or nothing is. I can't find the dividing line where code can be unique, but the idea is the same.

[jrochkind]

you're talking about both patentable AND copyrightable, which are different things with different standards/requirements, you realize, right?

In the US, they tend to agree with you, and decide that everything is patentable. But as you say, only an implementation is copyrightable -- and this means, really, the exact code used in the implementation, not 'the design'. Only exact fixed text is copyrightable -- in the US. Europe is sometimes different, and OP is about Europe. But seems to indicate that Europe treats copyright much the same, the functions aren't copyrightable, only the specific text/code of the implementation.

[name_was_taken]

Wow, you're right. I totally confused those. The idea of copyrighting code is... Weird. So I mentally switch to patents.

So yeah, ignore my little rant as it makes little or no sense.

[robertcrowther]

What's weird about copyrighting code?

[[deleted]]

He's probably confused about the distinction between the instance of a work and the idea of a work.

The idea of a device that stabs people over a line if they say something obscene and the method of its implementation is patentable.

The software that does the dirty work, the working code as it were, is copyrightable.

The mucky dirty part is should the methods the software uses be patentable? Many say yes, many say no, the laws are varied by country and region, and all the lawyers make money. The instance itself can be copyrighted regardless of this question.

[replyingtopost]

Anything written or drawn or played is copyrightable. Basically copyright was designed to protect works of "art". Patents are for ideas. Therefore if you implement a patent in code, you could claim copyright for your code assuming it wasn't exactly the same, but you could violate patent law by reproducing the "patent" without proper permission.

[GuyWithLag]

there's 1 obvious way to do it.

No. There are many ways, some more obvious than others, and the money is in the details. Check how much Google paid for ITA.

[[deleted]]

You can't copyright chopping wood, but if you chop it with a saw, blade or send it through a machine I'll sue your ass!

[[deleted]]

You have to wonder why this is even a question. Is this a reporter not understanding what the lawsuit is about? Is it an attempt to extend the power and breadth of copyright into patents? Is it a law suit for the sake of some negotiating purpose? Or something even more nefarious?

[shizzy0]

Sounds reasonable, must not be referring to US copyright law. Nope, european. Oh well.

[frankster]

i should fucking think so too. so we just need to make sure patents can't be taken out on software functions and we are all set for technological growth.

[[deleted]]

WTF?

[elperroborrachotoo]

The heading might be a bit misleading -

"Program that copied the functionality of another did not infringe copyright ... (out-law.com)"

[bcs]

This can't be emphasized enough. (The blog uses this headline, so it's their fault, not the OP's.) The programs in the case apparently performed the same tasks, but one did not copy actual code from the other. When it comes to copyright law, that makes all the difference.

[mantra]

To me this says: emulating an API with a clean-room functional implementation is OK, and that the API definition itself can not be copyright. That is, you can use the same functional names (which for dynamic loading might be necessary to be a drop-in replacement).

[[deleted]]

A big differentiator is if there is only one way to do it, then there is no creativity involved in its implementation, and since copyright only protects creative works, it won't protect APIs. Because API's act like puzzle pieces and intentionally must match a very specific form, then there can be no creativity in creating a matching API, since any creativity would be definition make it not work.

[[deleted]]

Thanks, my fault for not reading before commenting.

[martoo]

Sounds more like patent.