Hacker News Reader

Comment by hcknwscommenter | Hacker News Reader

>My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable

Your original post was about IBM not being able to copyright the PC Bios. Which is simply not true in any way shape or form. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp...

Relevant portion "But one problem remained with their IBM-compatible machine. How would they recreate the IBM BIOS without breaching the copyright? Why did they need a compatible BIOS (basic input output system)? . . . Some companies, such as Eagle, copied the BIOS either by reading the IBM manual to understand which interrupt codes did what or by simply copying the hard-coded ROM chip that holds the BIOS. This breached the copyright that IBM had over the BIOS and so did not take IBM long to prevent such companies from selling more of those machines. However, there is a way to bypass these types of copyrights with the use of a “clean room”."

View on HN

You don't seem to understand what an API is.

The API of a BIOS is not the whole thing! It just specifies the interface by which the BIOS can be called by the OS.

For a crude analogy, consider the interface specification that most modern cars adhere to: there will be a steering wheel with a certain shape, size, and position relative to the driver's seat; there will be two or three pedals, with the accelerator on the right, the brake pedal to its left, and the clutch pedal, if present, to the left of the brake; etc. etc. None of this tells you whether the car runs on gasoline, diesel, CNG, or electricity, or whether the motor is in the back or the front, how many cylinders it has, etc. — all these are implementation details that do not usually affect the interface much.

The implementation of the BIOS — the code that actually performs its various functions — is clearly copyrightable, and always has been. But the API is just the specification of what those functions are and how they can be invoked. Imagine if one car manufacturer had been able to copyright the steering wheel and pedal arrangement that we're all familiar with!

Your original post was about IBM not being able to copyright the PC Bios. Which is simply not true in any way shape or form.

No, no, no, that is not what I said. I was talking about the API of the BIOS. The BIOS source code is, of course, copyrightable. That is why IBM was able to make it very hard for people to copy it until folks did a proper clean room. Why would I go into detail about the counter measure if it was not copyrightable? That makes no sense.

Interesting edit to your original post. So their countermeasure was to try to taint everyone in the whole universe so a clean room reimplimentation would not be possible? Wow. Interesting interpretation.

That is not an interpretation, that was an actual strategy. They put enough information and source code into the documents that described its function to taint anyone who read the documentation. There are multiple sources (and I do believe some TV) on IBM's strategy. Compaq's Garry Stimac realized the problem when he read the manuals. A clean room strategy was setup.

You said: >My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable and then made an attempt at protecting it a different way.

What "different way" are we talking about here? IBM asserted their copyright quite forcefully against Eagle and shut them down.

You really need to read ScottBurson's commen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693994 because you don't seem to understand the difference between an API and source code.

Eagle directly copied the source code of the BIOS, they were not sued for copying the API.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com