Originally by: ToJoBo

---

Edited by: ToJoBo on 06/10/2010 00:09:49
Edited by: ToJoBo on 05/10/2010 23:58:01
I'll check with my IP lawyer when I next speak to him, but AFAIK, as long as no unattributed trademarks are used or any non-public information shown, there's no IP conflict.

Essentially, Capsuleer is just another HTTP user agent. It happens to understand a specific XML format and transform the results in a way that is different than how other browsers transform that XML, but unless Opera or Firefox is causing a conflict, the API use of Capsuleer is no different.

Now, I think Capsuleer does aggressive transformations with their own servers (acting as middleware), so there could be some (frivolous) claims against "republishing" or "derivative" information if they aren't acting as a simple, "dumb" HTTP cache. Still, ultimately, the app sends some HTTP requests and parses the results, showing them as something other than plain text. Plenty of precedents with browsers showing that such use is fair. Capsuleer is a specialized browser at its core.


I think the whole thing is either:

1. Smoke and mirrors by the Capsuleer team (doubtful, but something is strange)
2. CCP acting as a bully and the Capsuleer team not having an IP lawyer on retainer (likely)
3. The use not being understood on a technical level (more likely with the end user than CCP or Capsuleer)
4. Some infringement that may exist in the architecture of Capsuleer specifically. Bundling a CCP-provided DB with the app that may have certain licenses, for example. (very likely)
5. The use of trademarks owned by CCP that may lead a reasonable consumer to believe Capsuleer is a CCP product (good claim here if CCP wanted to pursue it.)

Ultimately, embedding a WebView in an app that shows raw API result calls would be considered a (very limited) browser. Decorating those results with art NOT owned by CCP should fall within the same fair use.

Again - IANAL but I have been neck deep in this type of thing lately.

I also have to admit that, though I've read the "Website terms of service" for eveonline.com, I've not seen a license for the API yet (aside from the fansite agreement for websites and radio stations) - so there could be very, very specific prohibitions I've not yet found. The "Website" TOS forbids linking from anywhere but another site's "homepage" - seemingly an incredibly antiquated, useless, boilerplate TOS that wouldn't stand in a US court, given prior precedents.

I'll dig into an API license when I can find it.

---