This question or questions very close to it must have come up in the endless litigation surrounding things like IBM BIOS/x86 ISA/Apple ][ ROMs/PS1 emulators, right?
What makes this case different? That APIs aren't protectable has been bandied about as gospel truth in the nerdosphere for decades. Was that assumption just wrong all along or is there something about this case that seems to make it subject to re-litigation?
What makes this case different? That APIs aren't protectable has been bandied about as gospel truth in the nerdosphere for decades. Was that assumption just wrong all along or is there something about this case that seems to make it subject to re-litigation?