I disagree that innovation in social is dead. You could have said the same thing a year ago, but who saw Pinterest coming? There are still lots of unmet needs.
Microsoft continues to do very well in enterprise markets. It's true that their consumer mindshare is almost zero except for XBox, but there is a lot of growth to be had from enterprise servers and their various cloud offerings.
The difference is that your Amazon content can be used on virtually any device, whereas Apple has little interest in bringing iX to any additional non-Apple devices.
The article treats the 'open' and 'closed' status of APIs as if it somehow relates to being open-sourced or something. Really they are just referring to access control, which is both irrelevant to the issue at hand (whether an API is copyrightable) and also not at all relevant to the actual APIs being discussed (Java). Access rights for linked APIs mostly don't exist, and if they do its by way of authorizing the runtime the library is running within, not by using security tokens + authentication.
Sure. The API Oracle is talking about is the interface between various parts of Java--if you include this file, you can now call these methods. Conversely, Twitter provide network endpoints with which you can communicate with Twitter.com. These bear a certain abstract similarity (there are interfaces), but they have vastly different purposes.
The author could make the argument that changes in the patentability of one meaning of API could impact the other meaning of API. Instead, while purporting to define the APIs under discussion. they talked about the Twitter sense instead.
They then discuss Java's API in terms of "Open" vs. "Closed," which appears to refer to how easy it is to register for an API key with web APIs. When you are using an APIs of the library kind, the files you are interacting with are under your control--there is no registration, there are no API keys.
The mechanism for how you access an API is not important. I see no meaningful difference between including a file and accessing classes and methods, and communicating with a Twitter server and using their RESTful interface. It's also a copyright claim, not a patent claim.
The fundamental problem I see with the Twitter example is that Oracle is not, as far as I know, claiming that programs that use their Java API (classes and methods) are in copyright violation. They are claiming that implementing that API is a copyright violation. The only way to make an analogy with Twitter would be for someone to set up a similar service that implements the same API to communicate with it - that is, you could point your application to this new, Twitter-like service and everything would still work.
The example might not be analogous to the initial situation but the possibilities for abuse would certainly extend to the example of a client implementing an api - if you copyright a server side api or a single computer api, you can copyright the client side of an api as well.
You've seriously never heard of registering a dll on a computer? It's the opposite way round but the concept's the same, the security's handled slightly differently though.
An API is an API man.
Your sheesh is causing a lot of programmers to look at you right now with a raised eyebrow.
