

Open APIs are the new software patents - mickaelkel
http://api500.com/post/46951162382/open-apis-are-the-new-software-patents

======
pjmlp
Lets not forget another feature of web APIs that makes them loved by the
enterprise.

The ability to make use of open source tooling, driving the cost down to zero,
without giving anything back, because customers cannot prove what technology
stack is being used.

~~~
jacobparker
> because customers cannot prove what technology stack is being used.

Morals aside, this is not typically the case. You can legally run GPL software
as a service without contributing back, for example. The AGPL fixes this
loophole but as far as I am aware is seldom used. (IANAL etc.)

~~~
_delirium
AGPL isn't exceptionally common, but it's used in a reasonable number of SaaS
type niches, where the other common license is "don't release source at all".
For example, Launchpad and Gitorious are AGPL, while their main competitor,
Github, is closed-source.

Ghostscript is probably the most widely used piece of AGPL software. That
one's driven mostly by their dual-licensing strategy (they want proprietary
SaaS providers to buy the commercial version of Ghostscript).

------
chesh
I agree completely with the general proposition that APIs are similar to
patents in the incentives it creates to open up data (similar to opening up
knowledge) while retaining control through the T&Cs (similar to the monopoly
granted through patent). The result is also similar in that APIs are spurring
a wave of innovation just like we saw in the industrial revolution.

A few points worth bearing in mind: 1) There is no monopoly, so ultimately no
API provider can abuse their power without limit 2) This is reinforced by the
fact that the API interface itself cannot be patented (though some have tired
and disputed it in courts), so one provider can be replaced by another 3)
Nevertheless some API providers with strong market power (e.g. Twitter) have
trampled on the rights of API consumers (even if they were legally within
their rights as described in the T&Cs)

Ultimately it is up to us in the API community to recognize good API
practices, and to bring down those API providers who abuse their power.

------
brandon_wirtz
Was this in English? Maybe that would help explain how the author got so much
wrong.

I love API's. I love sharing API's with others. I might have even gone along
with the article if it said that API's were the best way to show that you have
a technology that isn't patentable and enforce a measure of control over it.

You could write a TOS that says that users of the API can't reverse engineer,
compete with for a period of one year, blah, blah, blah.

As such you could rope some companies which would do some "build or buy"
research in to using your API and then not being able to not use you after.

I don't really believe that, but I could at minimum not faulted the author for
this belief.

This article is just a piece of marketing filled with misinformation and
poorly written. Don't take any legal advice from it, and don't take any
business advice from it.

------
annnnd
I would suggest a change of title. "Open" in title hints at non-proprietary
APIs, which doesn't make sense. A better word would be "public" (admittedly
not perfect though). Maybe just remove it, like this: "APIs are the new
software patents"?

~~~
mickaelkel
but what is "Open"? There is also an article about "What is Open" concerning
APIs : <http://api500.com/post/44022221316/what-is-open>

Openness for APIs is about to be Accessible, to be Public, to be Neutral and
to be Re-usable without restrictions.

So to be Public is one of the part of to be Open, in my opinion of course.
Some people have made a larger definition about openness
<http://opendefinition.org/okd/>

~~~
annnnd
It is the last one of openness requirements ("Re-usable without restrictions")
that bothers me. However I realize that other might understand the title as
intended... In other words, I should probably add "YMMV" to my original
comment. :)

------
alexchamberlain
This was really hard to read... I had to give up.

Did the Oracle vs Google case prove that APIs _aren't_ the new patent?

~~~
mickaelkel
It was "copyright troll" You can consider it at a API oriented "patent troll".
This proves that some API providers want to keep juridical and commercial
protection out of their APIs, as it was a patent. Have you seen all the recent
API Terms of service changes because of competiting business model of 3rd
party applications?

~~~
Guvante
Except it isn't the same as the only time your API is valuable is if you have
data, which you wouldn't have if it was a shell company.

------
metaphorm
who is the author of this article? I looked for a byline or a signature but
couldn't find one.

~~~
_delirium
I believe all the posts on this blog are by the person mentioned in the
sidebar on the right, "Mehdi Medjaoui, from Webshell.io".

------
print
Moving beyond the multiple typos, broken English, and weird linebreaks, which
are extremely distracting and majorly detract from the author's points --

Author's analogy (Prop. APIs == Patents) is completely false.

    
    
        These juridical and technical restrictions and 
        business dependance [sic] with specific licensing
        defined by ToS are a new kind of patent.
    

I call bullshit! If anything, APIs are protected by _copyright law_ , which
prevents _copying_.

Not to mention that a patent is protected by the state (hint: that's why it's
called the _United States_ Patent and Trademark Office), whereas Terms of
Service are _contracts between private parties_ that are entered into
_voluntarily_.

The basic right of a patent is that of exclusion -- i.e., excluding others
from "practicing" your invention (usually defined as producing, offering for
sale, or importing).

However, if you don't like some company's API, there are perfectly legal ways
to clone the backend service and construct an API that is basically identical.

If there is a monopoly power on behalf of proprietary APIs, it's created by
_market inertia_ and NOT by a state-granted artificial legal monopoly.

I'm getting a little sick of non-lawyers getting away with posting stupid
analogies with linkbaity titles. If you want to attack the patent system,
fine. But please, for the love of God, do 10 minutes of research first.

~~~
pessimizer
>there are perfectly legal ways to clone the backend service and construct an
API that is basically identical.

>If there is a monopoly power on behalf of proprietary APIs, it's created by
market inertia and NOT by a state-granted artificial legal monopoly.

Or it's created by the investment necessary to retool everything to work with
a "basically identical" API which cannot be substantially identical. I wonder
if they'll be a market for people that come up with synonyms so that companies
offering an identical service with entirely different codebase can avoid
duplicating copyrighted calls. Maybe we can download shims from torrent sites?

~~~
print
I'm not sure what you're getting at -- copying an API _interface_ is allowed,
because API interfaces are not copyrightable _see Oracle v. Google_.

~~~
LesZedCB
API: Application Program Interface.

There is nothing other than the interface of an API to copy. That's what it
is.

However, the implementation is what copyright protects, so, honestly, I think
this whole article is not very relevant.

~~~
print
Yes, my point is that "the API" as in the interface itself can be the copied,
but "the API" (implementation) cannot. Clear? :)

