I think you intentionally misunderstand my point or we're completely talking past each other. This case isn't about protocols just as much as it isn't about algorithms. The only relationship between this case and protocols is that in recent years some have taken to calling them APIs. No matter what the result of this case is, it will have no effect on protocols, just as it will have no effect on algorithms, or on bananas. From the perspective of copyright laws, these things are completely different categories, no matter what mental connections you can draw between them. I only bring up algorithm to help you understand that even though algorithms and programs have a similar relationship to that between protocols and code APIs, copyright law is not concerned with algorithms although it is with programs, so that same connection between protocols and code APIs is equally irrelevant to copyright law. But if you're not able to understand why programs are copyrighted but not algorithms, you won't be able to understand why code APIs could possibly be copyrighted but definitely not protocols.

> if you're not able to understand why programs are copyrighted but not algorithms, you won't be able to understand why code APIs could possibly be copyrighted but definitely not protocols.

The lack of copyright protection for algorithms was never in question here until you started bringing it up.

I said good day.

Protocols aren't copyrighted regardless of whether code APIs are for the same reason algorithms are not copyrighted even though programs are. Any argument you make that if APIs are copyrighted then so are protocols would also lead you to conclude that since programs are copyrighted, then so are algorithms. The latter is untrue, and so is the former.

For example, you said above that a program implementing a protocol becomes its fixed expression, and so every implementation of the protocol would violate that program's copyright. Well, that same argument can be applied to incorrectly conclude that algorithms are copyrighted as well. Same goes for an argument about certain fixed strings. I've explained directly why those arguments don't work, but if you don't understand the explanation, perhaps seeing that your argument would also apply for algorithms make you realize you've made a bad turn somewhere. To claim that this case affects protocols you'll need an argument that cannot be used to claim algorithms are copyrighted, too. If it can be -- it's a wrong argument.

> Same goes for an argument about certain fixed strings.

The fact that you don't see the difference between copying an abstract idea like an algorithm compared to literal copying of the names necessary for the structure, sequence, and organization of the API belies your ignorance wrt to copyright.

One involves no "this piece of the original is listed here in the reimplementation, verbatim" and the other does.

So far you've given no examples as to why you think that literal copying of SSO of a clean room code library reimplementation isn't equivalent to literal copying of SSO of a clean room REST server reimplementation.

Do you understand SSO arguments?

> The fact that you don't see the difference between copying an abstract idea like an algorithm compared to literal copying of the names

An algorithm can contain literal names and you're allowed to copy them. You need to understand that what you're allowed to copy or not is the second step after having established that the work under discussion is a fixed expression (and satisfies all other necessary conditions).

> necessary for the structure, sequence, and organization of the API belies your ignorance wrt to copyright.

SSO applies after it's established that a work is a copyrighted fixed expression -- it's the second step; it does not, and cannot, establish that things that are not works are. The SSO of a non-copyrightable thing, like an algorithm or a protocol is not protected.

> One involves no "this piece of the original is listed here in the reimplementation, verbatim" and the other does.

What you're allowed to copy or not of a copyrighted work is irrelevant to what you're allowed to copy, or not, of a non-copyrighted work. You are allowed to copy, verbatim, anything that's copyable from non-copyrighted works.

For example, if I tell you an original story at a bar, the story is not copyrighted. Therefore, you are clearly allowed to repeat it verbatim, write it down etc. It's not that copying verbatim, SSO, translations of anything is not allowed; it's that doing those things for copyrighted works might not be allowed. The action matters only after the work is determined to be copyrighted. Another example: distributing photos of copyrighted images might be an infringement. Your face, if you show it in public, isn't a copyrighted work. Do you think that "the SSO argument" states that the SSO of your face is protected?

> Do you understand SSO arguments?

Yeah, but clearly you don't. SSO, like translation, is one of the kinds of protected derivations of a copyrighted work. It is not used to define what is or isn't a work. Protocols are not copyrighted, and so their translation and SSO are not protected. Programs are copyrighted works, and so the argument goes that their SSO is protected.

Once more, two steps: first, is it a work that satisfies the necessary conditions for copyright (yes for programs, no for algorithms/protocols); second, if the first part holds, what kinds of copies and derivations are allowed (SSO, translation, verbatim copies of small parts etc)?

You don't need to concern yourself with SSO or verbatim copies until you've established that the work is copyrighted. If it's not -- like in the case of an algorithm or a protocol -- the argument is completely irrelevant.

> > So far you've given no examples as to why you think that literal copying of SSO of a clean room code library reimplementation isn't equivalent to literal copying of SSO of a clean room REST server reimplementation.

A reimplementation of a protocol will, by definition, have another implementation that has SSO copyright over the API.

> A reimplementation of a protocol will, by definition, have another implementation that has SSO copyright over the API.

Same for an algorithm.

What you're saying now is this: forget the protocol, which isn't a copyrighted work, let's look at some program that implement the protocol. If you reimplement you will violate the program's copyright. It doesn't work like that because your reimplementation isn't derived from that program. You probably don't even have any direct access to the program's executable, let alone its source. Think of two reporters covering some news event. The news event itself isn't copyrighted, but each article is. Still, because they're both reporting the same event, they will have the same quotes. Still, they're not infringing on each other because their source wasn't the other article but something (the event) which isn't copyrightable. If your source is something that isn't copyrighted, you can copy it even if some copyrighted work copies it as well.

And again, your argument would work to explain why implementing an algorithm is a copyright violation. It isn't, so you can know your argument is wrong.

How does your argument allow for a clean room developed code library to be infringing on what it re-implements based on the SSO copyright of the API names?

First, I am not making any argument whatsoever about the copyrightability of code APIs, only that no matter what their status is, protocols cannot be copyrighted. Second, software source code is certainly copyrighted work (and that's why discussions of SSO are relevant in the first place), and if you're referring to Android, both sides agree that Google copied 11,500 lines of text -- about 200 pages -- verbatim from that work. Whether or not, despite the copyrightability of software, that copying is an infringement depends on much more nuanced portions of copyright law. You may want to read the court papers or even the Wikipedia entry on that case if you want to be certain on the matters of fact.

The 11,500 lines are just what's necessary for API compatibility. 'public class String' 'import java.lang.Object', etc. Both sides also agree that this was totally clean roomed. The verbatim copying here is just the SSO of the API.

That's the interesting subject of this case. But the fact is that 200 pages of a copyrighted work were copied, and there is an interesting legal question as to whether that copying does, indeed, constitute copyright infringement (i.e. whether it's protected and, if so, whether it's fair use). That Google intentionally did not try or want to achieve compatibility is another important detail that the court focused on, as well as the fact that they did all that for commercial purposes (here we're actually seeing that copyright has three stages: 1. determine whether the work is of a nature and form that is copyrighted. 2. determine what kinds of copying are protected. 3. determine whether protected copying was fair use.)

None of this, however, is relevant to discussions of works that are not copyrighted in the first place, as they do not even satisfy the most basic necessary conditions, like algorithms and protocols, of which REST "APIs" are instances. The case is about stages 2 and 3; they fail at stage 1. Partial, translated, complete, verbatim etc. copies of non-copyrighted works is outside the bounds of copyright law, and have nothing whatsoever to do with this case.