Bonum Certa Men Certa

Guest Post: Watch Out for “Patented API” Traps, by Jose X

The Trap in a Nutshell



A patented API is short-hand for saying that an API (a software interface) is defined to parallel a patent so that using the API to build applications creates patented material unavoidably.



This is a trap API. Use it, and infringe.

The story:

Q: Can I "work around" the patent? Q: Can I re-implement the API libraries so as not to have to redesign and recode all apps? Q: Can I map or translate the app automatically into something safe?

A: In general, no, you can't, if the trap is a good one.

This covers the trap in a nutshell.

[The disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I have never written a patent application. But.. I do know how software works, and I have developed more than just half a clue about how patents work (in the US).]

Further Basic Discussion



For those that want a little more explanation, we have this link.

..as well as a hypothetical "Tetris" Patent Trap example.

Visual Basic function



"Tetris" Patent Trap



Patent Tetris Patent CoolDraw API Tetris API CoolDraw

We have two patents and two API. One patent and one API are high-level (Tetris). The other patent and API are low-level (CoolDraw). The high-level patent and high-level API are designed together as a trap as mentioned above. Ditto for the low level ones.

Let's look at a few more details on the patents and on the APIs. Then, we'll cover the four main scenarios. Do note the interplay of high-level with low-level. When the levels are the same (and matching), we have stepped onto the trap.

-- Patent Tetris: patents any tetris like game.

-- Patent CoolDraw: patents a cool way to draw on the screen from computer memory.

-- API Tetris: a createTetris function produces a tetris game when you input things like block size, colors, number of rows, time, etc.

-- API CoolDraw: a doCoolDraw function uses a cool algorithm to move values onto the screen.

Case 1: -- Patent Tetris -- API Tetris.

In this scenario, if we use API Tetris within our app so that a tetris game is created, we violate Patent Tetris, guaranteed.

Case 2: -- Patent Tetris -- API CoolDraw.

In this scenario, if we use API CoolDraw within our app so that we draw to the screen, we do not violate Patent Tetris unless we write a lot more code so as to create our own tetris game. It would take many lines of code to violate Patent Tetris.

Case 3: -- Patent CoolDraw -- API Tetris.

In this scenario, if we use API Tetris within our app so that a tetris game is created, we may violate Patent CoolDraw ..or not. It depends on how API Tetris was implemented. Does createTetris write to the screen the way described by Patent CoolDraw?

Case 4: -- Patent CoolDraw -- API CoolDraw.

In this scenario, if we use API CoolDraw within our app so that we draw to the screen, we violate Patent CoolDraw, guaranteed.

Quick Analysis

Case 1 (and Case 4) patent and API are at the same level (and matching). This is a trap. To avoid infringement, you have to redesign and re-code the application using a different API.

Case 2 is the case when people consider "working around" the patent. It's an odd event. You have to write many lines of code in order to possibly be infringing. If you are, you then try to code around it, perhaps by building something a little different than tetris. [In general, avoid infringement by make sure some of the properties of the patent claim are not met.]

Case 3 is the case where if a violation were to exist in the API implementation, you can try to re-implement the libraries and this way avoid re-implementing each and every single app as would be required for Cases 1 and 4.

The reason Case 3 allows you to re-implement the libraries and avoid re-coding up every application is fundamentally because you can re-implement the API but keep fixed the same interfaces and specifications enshrined in the API contract and assumed by the applications. This is not possible in Case 1 and Case 4 because any re-implementation of the same specification, for these cases, will infringe in the same exact way as with the original implementation since it's the specification itself (not any implementation of any part of it) that parallels the patent.

The reason Case 2 does not result in automatic infringement as happens with Case 1 and Case 4 is that the API interface and patent requirements don't match. It's that simple. Case 2 is where the application could possibly end up violating if you code enough with that API or with another. The Case 2 patent is high-level while the API is low-level. Case 3 is different in that the patent is low-level while the API is high-level; thus, Case 3 contrasts with Case 2 because in Case 3 the potential violations would not happen within the application (as with Case 2) but rather within the library.

In short, Case 1 and Case 4 are the only cases (of the four) where any API usage, by definition, specifies that the application will acquire all the properties of the matching patent claim. These are the traps.

Random APIs will not shadow any given patent as occurred in Case 1 and in Case 4. Developers normally would not have to worry. They can expect a Case 2 or a Case 3, if anything. However, Case 1 and Case 4 can be designed on purpose when the patent author and API designer are the same entity. Why would this author create this trap for developers? Well...

-- The patent author is determined to file lawsuits as necessary (maybe via proxies) in order to slow down many and/or key competing applications (eg, FOSS applications).

“You can be given a patent license and even GPL code for the core API, but not for the patented API extensions.”If you are using an API designed by such a vendor (regardless of who implemented the libraries), beware. I see lots of redesigning and re-coding in your future, just to get back to the same point (on a per app basis). Remember that the patent might still be in the pipeline, have been sold to a proxy, or have been developed through a partnership under a different company or alias.

The above nutshell and sample analysis omit many details. There are many corner cases and things are not cut and dried. In a second article to follow (possibly), we will look closer into many details of the trap scenario.

Finally, there is a more insidious trap that exists. You can be given a patent license and even GPL code for the core API, but not for the patented API extensions. You may then find that you can create only simple applications safely (with that core API), even if you decide not to use the patented extension API but build your own. This is more insidious because the patent and copyright licenses given for the core API give the illusion of safety (a green light to proliferate), and is insidious and dangerous all the more so since you might purposely avoid the patented extensions. The trap happens if you use the "safe" core with any extension whatsoever (since the extended patented properties can be very general in nature). The details of this extended insidious trap may form the subject of a third article later on. It's also described further here.

Comments

Recent Techrights' Posts

IBM's CEO Roasted, Sizzled and Grilled for Dumb and Inconsistent Vapourware Promises
It looks like being a chronic liar is what it takes to lead the company once synonymous with computing
Who Imitates Who? Plagiarist as Client (From Microsoft), 'Plagiarism' at the Law Firm?
let's revisit the subject
 
Links 11/06/2025: More Vulnerabilities Found in 'Smart' Phones, China Extends Reach in the Pacific
Links for the day
Gemini Links 11/06/2025: Grain and Steam Next Fest
Links for the day
Links 11/06/2025: "Quantum" Hype From IBM, US Closer to Martial Law, and “The Nation” Celebrates Milestone
Links for the day
IBM's Goal Is Not (and Never Was) Computer Users' Freedom
More than 1.5 decades ago I found IBM to be an "ally of convenience" because of OpenDocument Format (ODF)
Wayland Shows the IBM/Red Hat Way of Doing Things
IBM is trying to 'kill' X
GitHub is Proprietary, Controlled by Microsoft, and GPL Violation Warehouse
"IRS tax filing software [will be] released to the people as free software" ... In general this is good news
Slopfarm Catastrophe
Seems like BetaNews (or BetaNoise) has just suffered a major data loss and restored the site from a week-old backup
Abuse Inside the Polish Patent Office (UPRP) - Part VIII: Illegal Working Conditions
How many people need to die for these people to get their massive salaries?
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, June 10, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Links 10/06/2025: Apple Hype and Physical Attacks on Bloggers
Links for the day
Gemini Links 10/06/2025: Loon Lake, Farming, and Forth
Links for the day
Links 10/06/2025: Jaws at 50 and US Democracy Crushed Very Rapidly (Martial Law Seems Imminent)
Links for the day
Abuse Inside the Polish Patent Office (UPRP) - Part VII: Washing Their Hands After Corruption and Abuse
"Tragedy or comedy?"
Culling Bad RSS Feeds of Bad Sites
Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater
If 'Microsoft v Techrights' is Dealt With by a 'Microsoft Court' (or a Court Outsourced to Microsoft)
More on that later
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, June 09, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, June 09, 2025
Gemini Protocol Turns Six in 10 Days From Now
If you haven't tried it yet, then give it a go today
Live as You Preach
technology is fast becoming dysphoric
Gemini Links 09/06/2025: Addition Addiction and Nitride
Links for the day
Links 09/06/2025: Science, Hardware Projects, and Democracy Receding
Links for the day
Computers Got Smaller, So GNU/Linux Got Bigger
Many people here recognise the lack of urgency (or need) to get expensive new laptops
BetaNews is a Plagiarism and LLM Slop Hub, the Chief Editor Isn't Addressing This Problem Anymore
SS Fagioli is basically a parasite leeching off or exploiting other people's work
Links 09/06/2025: Chaos in Los Angeles and Hurricane Season
Links for the day
GNU/Linux Grows at Windows' Expense and Microsoft Trolls Infest and Maliciously Target Articles About It
Microsoft is - and has long been - organised crime
They Say I'm Mr. Bombastic
They didn't take good lawyers
Links 09/06/2025: Windows TCO and Many Data Breaches
Links for the day
Abuse Inside the Polish Patent Office (UPRP) - Part VI: Political Stunts by Former President Edyta Demby-Siwek and the Connection to Profound Corruption at EUIPO
it's like a money-laundering operation where one politician rewards another at taxpayers' expense
Gemini Links 09/06/2025: Pipelines and Splitgate
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, June 08, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, June 08, 2025