oracle v. google: are apis copyrightable?

7/27/2019 Oracle v. Google: Are APIs Copyrightable?

1/92

www.gesmer.com

Oracle v. GoogleAre APIs Copyrightable?

Boston Bar Association

November 13, 2013

Lee Gesmer

Gesmer Updegrove LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

Copyright Gesmer Updegrove LLP 2013

Wednesday, November 13, 13


2/92

www.gesmer.com

District Court:

To what extent, if at all, are certainreplicated elements of the structure,sequence and organization of the Javaapplication programming interface (API)protected by copyright?

2

http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/


3/92

www.gesmer.com11-13-2013

Android and the Java API

Software Copyright Law

District Court Trial/Ruling

Issues on Appeal

3



4/92


Java/Android Timeline:

1996 - Sun releases Java

2005 - Google acquires Android2007 - Google releases Android Kit

2008 - First Android phone

2010 - Oracle purchases Sun (Java)

4



5/92


Larry Ellison

2010 - Oracle sues Google

2012 - Trial and decision on infringement

2013 - Appeal (argument: 12-4-13)

5



6/92


Android Mobile OS

6



7/92


Android- Most widely used smartphoneOS platform

Samsung Galaxy S4

7



8/92


Android OS

15 million lines code 8

API PACKAGESJAVA virtual machine

http://www.gesmer.com/


9/92

G l d l t f A d id


10/92


Google development of Android

Clean Room:

Java virtual machine

Java API implementing code (2.8million lines)

10



11/92


Google development of Android

But:

copied verbatim Java declaring

code (7,000 lines)

11



12/92


13/92


14/92


The Java Platformand the Java API

14


Java Write Once Run Anywhere


15/92


Java - Write Once, Run Anywhere

15

Host OS (IBM/Apple, Android)

Java Virtual Machine

Java Programming

Language (JPL)

Java APIImplementing Code

2.8 million lines



16/92


17/92


Form of Java declaring code

37 packages

600+ classes

6,000+ methods

17



18/92


Java API Declarations (Methods)

18



19/92


20/92


Google

20


G l


21/92


Google

21



22/92


23/92

O l


24/92


Oracle

Java API =

Chapter titles,

topic sentences

Ann Droid

24



25/92


26/92

17 U S C 102 (1976)


27/92


17 U.S.C. 102 (1976)

(a) Copyright protection subsists . . .in

original works of authorship fixed in anytangible medium of expression, nowknown or later developed ....

(b) In no case does copyright protectionfor an original work of authorshipextend to any idea, procedure, process,

system, method of operation, concept,principle, or discovery .

27



28/92


17 U.S.C. 101 . . . (1980)

A computer program is a set ofstatements or instructions to be

used directly or indirectly in acomputer in order to bring about acertain result.

28

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16308210976883953911&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16308210976883953911&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16308210976883953911&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/


29/92


30/92

Whelan Associates Inc v Jaslow Dental
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10382786109829050440&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22


31/92


Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow DentalLaboratory, Inc.,797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir.1986)

The purpose or function of a utilitarianwork would be the works idea, andeverything that is not necessary to thatpurpose or function would be part of theexpression of the idea. Because that ideacould be accomplished with a number ofdifferent structures, the structure of the

program is part of the programsexpression, not its idea.

31

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10382786109829050440&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10382786109829050440&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10382786109829050440&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10382786109829050440&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/


32/92

Computer Associates International Inc v
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6976925648486076739&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22


33/92


Computer Associates International, Inc. v.Altai, 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992):

outdated appreciation of computerscience

. . . relies too heavily onmetaphysical distinctions and does notplace enough emphasis on practicalconsiderations.

33

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6976925648486076739&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6976925648486076739&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6976925648486076739&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6976925648486076739&q=872+F.+Supp.+2d+974&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22


34/92

abstraction


35/92


35

Host OS (IBM/Apple, Android)

Java Virtual Machine

Java Programming

Language (JPL)

Java API ImplementingCode

2.8 million



36/92

Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland


37/92


p p

International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir.1995)

"method of operation," as that term isused in 102(b), refers to the means bywhich a person operates something ...

The Lotus menu command hierarchydoes not merely explain and presentLotus 1-2-3s functional capabilities tothe user; it also serves as the methodby which the program is operated andcontrolled

37


Lotus:


38/92


The set of words, through which people useor manipulate or operate a system, is on the

uncopyrightable side of the 102(a)/102(b)line

38


Lotus:


39/92


Java API:

39


Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir.


40/92


1993) and Sony v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596(9th Cir. 2000)

- Intermediate copying

- Compatibility/interoperability

40



41/92

Oracle at trial


42/92


Structure, sequence, organization (SSO) of 37

packages/classes/methods

Creativity

API analagous to taxonomy

Android not fully interoperable

42


G l t t i l


43/92


Google at trial

Leading SSO case (Whelan) not the law

Verbatim API commands essental forinteroperability

SSO of command structure essential forinteroperability

Law does not require 100% interoperability

43



44/92


45/92


46/92

District Court:

I


47/92


Issue:

The extent to which, if at all,certain replicated elements of thestructure, sequence and

organization of the Javaapplication programming interfaceare protected by copyright

47


District Court:


48/92


No law is directly on point. Thisorder relies on general principles of

copyright law ....

48


District Court:


49/92


verbatim copies (vs SSO)

source code at issue includes"declarations." Significantly, the rulesof Java dictate the precise form of

certain necessary lines of code calleddeclarations, whose precise andnecessary form explains why Android

and Java must be identicalwhen itcomes to those particular lines ofcode.

49


District Court:


50/92


verbatim copies -

In order to declare a particularfunctionality, the languagedemands that the method

declaration take a particular form.There is no choice in how toexpress it.

50


District Court:


51/92


SSO -

Oracle's best argument . . . is thatwhile no single name is copyrightable,Java's overall system of organized

names covering 37 packages, withover six hundred classes, with over sixthousand methods is a "taxonomy"

and, therefore, copyrightable

51


District Court:


52/92


SSO -

Structure, sequence and organization ...is a phrase that crept into use todescribe a residual property right whereliteral copying was absent. A questionthen arises whether the copyright holderis more appropriately asserting anexclusive right to a functional system,

process, or method of operation thatbelongs in the realm of patents, notcopyrights

52


District Court:


53/92


SSO -

that phrase [SSO] has not been re-used by the Ninth Circuit since

1989

53


District Court:

SSO -


54/92


SSO

the Whelanapproach has given wayto the Computer Associates

approach

54


District Court:


55/92


SSO -

Many different API organizations couldsupply the same overall range offunctionality. They would not, however,be interoperable. Specifically, codewritten for one API would not run on an

API organized differently, for the namestructure itself dictates the precise form

of command to call up any givenmethod.

55


Form of Java Declarations


56/92


- Package ~ bookshelf (166 - 37 at issue)

- Class ~ book (600)

- Method (subroutine) ~ chapter (6,000)

56


District Court:

SSO


57/92


SSO -

Yes, it is creative. Yes, it is original. Yes,it resembles a taxonomy.

. . . But it is nevertheless a command

structure, a system or method ofoperation a long hierarchy of over sixthousand commands to carry out pre-assigned functions. For that reason, it

cannot receive copyright protection

57



58/92


Degree of interoperability

58


District Court:

d f i t bilit


59/92


degree of interoperability -

Millions of line of code had beenwritten in Java before Androidarrived ... Such code was owned by thedevelopers, not by Oracle. In order forat least some of this code to run on

Android, Google was required toprovide the same command system

59


District Court:

d f i t bilit


60/92


degree of interoperability -

Google was free to duplicate thecommand structure for the 37packages,in Android in order to

accommodate third-party sourcecode relying on the 37 packages(taking care to write its own

implementations).

60


District Court:

D g f i t bilit


61/92


Degree of interoperability -

Contrary to Oracle, fullcompatibility is not relevant to

the Section 102(b) analysis.Sony v. Connectix - involved subsetof functions

61


District Court:

Oracle v Google test?


62/92


Oracle v. Google test? - 62

functional [expressive] aspectsnecessary for compatibility (notcopyrightable)

versus

copying functional [expressive]aspects unnecessary for

compatibility (possiblycopyrightable).



63/92


63

Oracle Appeal

to CAFC


Oracle:


64/92


. . . Ann Droid . . .

64


Oracle:

Ann Droid wants to publish a bestseller So 65


65/92


Ann Droid wants to publish a bestseller. Soshe sits down with a copy of Harry Potter

and the Order of the Phoenix .... Sheverbatim copies all the chapter titlesfromChapter 1 (Dudley Demented) to Chapter38 (The Second War Begins). She copiesverbatim the topic sentences of eachparagraph, starting from the first (highlydescriptive) one and continuing, in order, tothe last, simple one (Harry nodded.).

65


Oracle:

66


66/92


Defendant Google Inc. has copied ablockbuster literary work just as surely, and

as improperly, as Ann Droid

66


Oracle:

67


67/92


If Ann Droid had paraphrased in the sameorder every chapter title and topic sentencewithout copying a single word verbatim, theentire plot that she copiedthe structure,

sequence, and organization of the overallwork would be protected. ...

This principle applies equally to software.

67


68


68/92


Software API ~ imaginative fiction?

68


Works of fiction

69


69/92


Historical/biographical works

Textbooks

Compilations

Expressive/functional elements in software

69


Oracle:

70


70/92


Software exceptionalism

Google copied a magnum opus

No ex post Altaifiltration process

Interoperability irrelevant tocopyrightability

Partial interoperability/fragmentation

Court over-dissected API

70


Oracle re verbatim copying -

Google Concedes Away the Entire 71


71/92


Google Concedes Away the EntireCase

To start, Google concedes that itliterally copied 7,000 lines of declaring

code . . . collapsing the challenge onappeal to a single question: Is thereany protected expression at all ineither the copied codeor the copied

structure

71


Oracle trial counsel:

Our case is not about the taking of any72


72/92


individual or even any small set of method

declarations. Our case is about thecomprehensive taking of the structure,sequence and organizationof the computerprograms as defined by the API specifications.

That structure, sequence and organizationincludes method declarations at theappropriate level. It is like the sub subsubchapter in the outline structure. ...[W]hat we are seeking to protect is our verycomplex outline.

72


Oracle:

Uses partial quote: 73


73/92


Uses partial quote:

many ways to group the methodsyet still duplicate the same range of

functionality ...there were manyways to group the methods yet stillduplicate the same range of

functionality. (District Court)

73


Excluding Courts conclusion:

74


74/92


Duplication of the commandstructure is necessary for

interoperability

74


Oracle:

Interoperability 75


75/92


Interoperability

interoperability defense relevantto fair use, not copyrightability



76/92

77


77/92


Altai filtration -

At time of plaintiffs writing, or at timeof infringement?

Ex anteor ex post?


Oracle:

78


78/92


Oracle: Ex ante (when work created)

Google: Ex post (when competing

product created)


Oracle:

79


79/92


Fact that function requiresidentical copy is does not deprivework of copyrightability under

merger or interoperability



80/92

81


81/92


Does CAFC need to draw the line

between 102(a) and (b)?


Possible CAFC test? -

82


82/92


The set of words, through whichpeople use or manipulate oroperate a system is unprotected by

copyright law where necessary forcompatibility or interoperability expost


Or -

83


83/92


Software commands that carry outpreassigned functions necessary for

interoperatibility ex post areunprotected


Or -

APIs made available to programming84


84/92


APIs made available to programming

community and necessary forinteroperability ex post fall under102(b)

Source code/object code not disclosedto users, developers does not


Justice Ginsburg, Lotus, 1996

I thought it was assumed that every one ofthese process system method of operation

85


85/92


these process, system, method of operation

-- that you have to extract out of them whatis the expression, the separableexpression. . . . but that you can't just say,oh, method of operation. Forget it. We don't

have to worry about expression.

That seems to me a wholly different way oflooking at 102(b) than runs through all of

copyright. There's always the question, isthere separable expression?


Major questions facing CAFC

Interoperability - copyrightability or fairuse? Partial or full?

86


86/92


use? Partial or full?

Altai filters: ex ante or ex post?

Under what circumstances shouldcopyright law allow a free compulsorylicense that permits copier to useexpressive aspects of a copyrighted workto create an interoperative derivative

work?


Does copyright de minimis doctrine applyto rangeCheck?

87


87/92



De minimis copying

88


88/92


range-Check Function:

9 lines of code out of 15 milliontested by Oracle


De minimis copying 89


89/92


Court:

an innocent and inconsequential

instance of copying in the contextof a massive number of lines ofcode


De minimis copying

JUDGE ALSOP: I couldn't have told you the90


90/92


JUDGE ALSOP: I couldn t have told you the

first thing about Java before this trial. But,I have done and still do a lot ofprogramming myself in other languages. Ihave written blocks of code like

rangeCheck a hundred times or more. Youcould do it. It is so simple.

There was no way that you could say thatthat was speeding them along to themarketplace. That is not a good argument.


De minimis copying

91


91/92


MR. BOIES: Your Honor --JUDGE ALSOP: You're one of the bestlawyers in America. How can you evenmake that argument?

You know, maybe the answer is becauseyou are so good it sounds legit. But it isnot legit. That is not a good argument.


92


92/92


Thank You!Slides will be available on:

masslawblog.com


oracle v. google: are apis copyrightable?

Documents