
Ask HN: If UIs can be patented, why not APIs? - whack
I&#x27;m trying to better understand the Oracle vs Google patent lawsuit. It seems like the dev&#x2F;HN community has overwhelmingly come down on the side of Google, and the most common justification I hear, is that <i>&quot;Google might have copied the Java API, but they didn&#x27;t copy any of the implementation. They reimplemented the entire thing themselves. Therefore, it&#x27;s fine.&quot;</i> The corollary here seems to be that APIs can&#x27;t&#x2F;shouldn&#x27;t be patent-worthy - only the implementation should be protected.<p>This seems somewhat contradictory with the fact that UIs&#x2F;UXs are frequently patented[1], and most people don&#x27;t have a problem with it. If someone made a phone whose user interface was a clone of iOS, most people would agree that Apple would have a valid legal case against the copycat.<p>We recognize that a major portion of innovation comes not just from implementation, but also from elegant interface design. Hence why User Interfaces are deemed patent-worthy. So why not programmatic interfaces in the form of APIs as well?<p>[1]: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;08&#x2F;03&#x2F;swipe-to-patent-design-patents-in-the-age-of-user-interfaces&#x2F;
======
mindcrime
_and most people don 't have a problem with it_

I haven't found that to be true at all. Look at all the furor over the "one
click" patent that Amazon got. I don't know anybody who thinks that patent
should have been granted.

Anyway, I think your metaphor is too jumbled to be meaningful. A "user
interface" is not the same thing as a "programming interface" (eg, an API) and
I don't see any intrinsic reason that they should be treated the same.

Also, note that in the end, most of the Google/Oracle case came down to issues
of copyright, not patents.

Further note that the issue of protecting UI/UX is hardly a settled issue.
See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_and_feel#Lawsuits_over](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_and_feel#Lawsuits_over)

------
fiedzia
It is easy to replace one design with another and people want to be unique in
this aspect anyway.If someone would create a calendar app, and you would like
to replace it with another, its perfectly fine if visually they would be
slightly different. Copyright and design patents do not block ability to
create functional equivalents, because people do not rely on design being
_exactly_ the same. API's are different. If you provide an API, then all
clients must use _exactly_ the same "design"(function names, arguments, error
codes, everything). If someone else would want to provide alternative
implementation, they _can not_ change _anything_ , otherwise clients will stop
working and need to be changed. So the concepts may be similar, but
implications are entirely different.

------
qbrass
IANALblahblahblah

Design patents cover ornamental aspects, and can be invalidated if those
aspects provide a functional utility. You can't cover round wheels under a
design patent, but you could cover purple wheels with one.

You can remove Apple's patented animations and icons from your clone of their
software and the software would still function.

You can't remove this_Is_Patented_So_Do_Not_Use() from an API if something's
going to break by sending it and not getting the proper response back.

------
dragonwriter
Your seem to be misrepresenting the viewpoint you are responding to, confusing
patents (which were not the issue with the APIs) with copyrights (which were.)

Also, as your link note, the UI patents are _design patents_ , which don't
cover visual but not functional elements; an API is not within the scope of
design patents.

