decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Oracle v. Google - Copyright Infringement Assertions and Trial Dates
Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT

The Court and the parties are now moving into final trial preparations. A conference call was held yesterday ( [PDF; Text]). One of the items covered on the call was the trial schedule, which is now firmed up. The trial will now commence on April 16, and the Court has specified the other days that will initially be allocated to the trial (see listing below; also the judge's schedule is here).

What else the Court and the parties discussed on that call we do not know because an order issuing from that call has been sealed. (Dkt. 857)

The Court did issue an order (854 [PDF; Text]) with respect to the copyright issues seeking to clarify what does and does not stand accused of copyright infringement. The Court wishes to provide this information to the jury following the respective opening statements of the parties at the commencement of Phase I (copyright infringement liability) of the trial. The Court has asked the parties to confer and critique the following list:

What stands accused are:

  • The 12 Android files of source code (copied from 11 Java files), including rangeCheck. Please identify which files only contained copied English comments that were not compiled. Please identify which files were part of the 37 API implementation.
  • Plain English descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the API “specifications” (right column). Please identify the number of lines of such items.
  • The 37 APIs but only as to their specific selection, structure, and organization, it being conceded that the implementing code is different. Please identify the media of fixation for the selection, structure, and organization.
  • Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of the 37 Java APIs.

What is not accused:

  • Android’s use of the Java programming language (other than any direct copying of source code).
  • The titles and names of APIs, including all package and class names and definitions, fields, methods and method signatures (names in the left column of specifications).
  • The idea of APIs.
  • The Dalvik virtual machine.
One thing I note on that list is the exception of the Java language source code from things not accused. If the Java language is available under the GNU General Public License, then that source code should not be excepted in this instance.

Here are the dates presently reserved for the trial:

Week One
4/17/2012 (Tuesday)
4/18/2012
4/19/2012
4/20/2012

Week Two
4/23/2012
4/24/2012
4/25/2012
4/26/2012
4/27/2012

Week Three
4/30/2012
5/1/2012
5/2/2012
5/3/2012
5/4/2012

Week Four
5/7/2012
5/8/2012
5/9/2012
5/10/2012
5/11/2012

Week Five
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
5/17/2012
5/18/2012

Week Six
5/21/2012
5/22/2012
5/23/2012
5/24/2012
5/25/2012

Week Seven
5/28/2012
5/29/2012
5/30/2012
5/31/2012
6/1/2012

We note that the Court has scheduled a session on Memorial Day, a federal holiday (5/28/2012). Also, the Court has only scheduled seven weeks for the trial instead of the originally anticipated eight weeks.


**************

Docket

04/04/2012 - 854 - REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF ISSUES RE COPYRIGHT. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 4, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - 855 - Letter from John L. Cooper to Judge Alsup regarding Dr. Kearl. (Cooper, John) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - 856 - ORDER SETTING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 3:00 APRIL 4, 2012. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/4/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 3:00 P.M. ON 4/3/2012. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/4/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 4/17/2012 4/18/2012 4/19/2012 07 4/20/2012 4/23/2012 4/24/2012 4/25/2012 4/26/2012 4/27/2012 4/30/2012 5/1/2012 5/2/2012 5/3/2012 5/4/2012 5/7/2012 5/8/2012 5/9/2012 5/10/2012 5/11/2012 5/14/2012 5/15/2012 5/16/2012 5/17/2012 5/18/2012 5/21/2012 5/22/2012 5/23/2012 5/24/2012 5/25/2012 5/28/2012 5/29/2012 5/30/2012 6/1/2012 07:30 AM before Hon. William Alsup. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) . (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 5/31/2012 07:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012). (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - 857 - ORDER Regarding Telephone Call. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/4/2012. FILED UNDER SEAL.(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)


**************

Documents

854

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

No. C 10-03561 WHA

REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
OF ISSUES RE COPYRIGHT

In connection with the opening statements (and eventually the special verdict form at the end of Phase One), the Court will want the jury to be clearly told what specifically stands accused of copyright infringement (and what is not accused). The Court is considering making its own statement to the jury in this regard after the opening statements so as to frame for the jury the Phase One issues in play. To do so, the Court asks counsel to meet and confer and to revise the following summary. The summary of what the Court understands is as follows:

What stands accused are:

  • The 12 Android files of source code (copied from 11 Java files), including rangeCheck. Please identify which files only contained copied English comments that were not compiled. Please identify which files were part of the 37 API implementation.
  • Plain English descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the API “specifications” (right column). Please identify the number of lines of such items.


  • The 37 APIs but only as to their specific selection, structure, and organization, it being conceded that the implementing code is different. Please identify the media of fixation for the selection, structure, and organization.
  • Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of the 37 Java APIs.

What is not accused:

  • Android’s use of the Java programming language (other than any direct copying of source code).
  • The titles and names of APIs, including all package and class names and definitions, fields, methods and method signatures (names in the left column of specifications).
  • The idea of APIs.
  • The Dalvik virtual machine.

Counsel should at least be able to agree on how we will describe the items in play in Phase One. By THURSDAY, APRIL 12 AT NOON, both sides shall please file a statement along the lines of the above with appropriate revisions.

The Court will not rule on the copyrightability issues until all of the Phase One evidence is in the trial record and counsel are reminded again of the need to place in the record all evidence on which they will rely for their respective positions, both as to copyrightability and infringement and defenses. Before Phase One closing argument, the Court will decide whether to ask for an advisory verdict on issues. (As already clear, damages evidence, including copyright damages evidence, will be reserved to Phase Three).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2012.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2


855

FARELLA BRAIN + MARTEL LLP [letterhead]

April 4, 2012

The Honorable William H. Alsup
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Judge Alsup:

I write on behalf of Rule 706 expert Dr. James R. Kearl to address the scheduling issue of the amount of time to be allocated in trial to his direct examination. At the hearing on March 28, 2012, the Court indicated that as much as two hours could be allocated to the direct examination of Dr. Kearl, which time would not be counted against trial time allocated to either party. (See transcript pages 142 — 143.) I have consulted with Daniel Purcell, counsel for Google, and Steven Holtzman, counsel for Oracle, who have indicated that they have no objection to two hours being allocated to direct examination of Dr. Kearl provided his direct examination is not charged against the trial time of either party. Accordingly, Dr. Kearl requests that he be allocated two hours for his direct examination at trial.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper


856

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

No. C 10-03561 WHA

ORDER SETTING
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

The undersigned judge will have a telephone conference with counsel at 3:00 P.M. TODAY. Please call 415-522-3684 beforehand to leave your telephone number to be contacted. Only one representative per side is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2012.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


  


Oracle v. Google - Copyright Infringement Assertions and Trial Dates | 217 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 08:55 AM EDT
Please mention the mistake in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT
For all posts that are not on topic. Please make all links
clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 08:57 AM EDT
Please mention the news story's name in the title of the top
post. Please make all links clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes thread
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 08:59 AM EDT
Please post all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ
to find. Please post them as HTML as Plain Old Text for easy
copying.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Copyright Infringement Assertions and Trial Dates
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 09:23 AM EDT
"If the Java language is available under the GNU General Public
License"

What do you mean by this? The GPL is meant for code (i.e. something that is
formulated in a language), not for a language (i.e. the syntax and semantics
specified by a language specification).

Still don't get why they talk about 37 APIs. Java have one standard API. It is
grouped into several packages (or namespaces), which I assume is what they mean
when they say APIs. But why confuse APIs with packages?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Verdict predictions.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 09:34 AM EDT
Lets see what I'll get right:

* The 12 Android files of source code (copied from 11 Java files),
including rangeCheck. Please identify which files only contained copied English
comments that were not compiled. Please identify which files were part of the 37
API implementation.

Guilty, but already removed. Minimal damage.

* Plain English descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the
API “specifications” (right column). Please identify the number of lines of such
items.

Not Guilty: Android came from Apache Harmoney, whose lisence allows pretty much
any copying you care to think of.

* The 37 APIs but only as to their specific selection, structure, and
organization, it being conceded that the implementing code is different. Please
identify the media of fixation for the selection, structure, and organization.

Not Guilty: Copyright issue. See Apache Harmoney's lisence.

* Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of
the 37 Java APIs.

Not Guilty: Copyright issue. Again, see Apache Harmoney's lisence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Copyright Infringement Assertions and Trial Dates
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT

"What is not accused:"

The titles and names of APIs, including all package and class names and definitions, fields, methods and method signatures (names in the left column of specifications).
And it is stipulated that the implementations of the API's are different. So, once you have excluded package and class names and definitions, fields, methods and method signatures, and all the non-copied implementation, ...what is left on which to hang a case? The concept that Math.abs() denotes the absolute value function, rather than, say, denoting the square root?

Oracle is going to trial with this? They must have tremendous confidence in their lead counsel's ability to persuade a jury.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What does a jury decide?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 10:23 AM EDT
The last two points that are accused have me confused a bit. Especially the last
one.
- Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of the 37
Java APIs.

Is that something that a jury can decide? Shouldn't it first be clear whether
source code can actually be a derivative work of an API?

If it can be then I guess a jury can look at the evidence (API and source code)
and with the help of some experts decide how much and what really is
infringing.

But does the jury also get to decide whether an implementation or usage of an
API is actually an derived work under copyright law? Personally I thought that
is absurd and cannot be, but apparently if this question is put before a jury
this is something that is in doubt?

That seems a pretty hard question to ask of a jury, which I assumed are not
trained legal copyright professionals.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge A nailing the communications
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT
Accused: Plain English descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the API
“specifications"

I seem to recall asking if that was all that Oracle had..

I've observed that Oracle has been flip/flopping around API/API Specification
and generally being woolly about which bit it's referring to. This calls it
out.

API != API Specification != API specification.
(Abstract Interface) !=
(Compilation of Unprotected elements) !=
(Wordy Description of [one] Unprotected element).


Judge A also asked both parties to state which parts of the APIs in question
where 'integral' to the Language
(that is the 'structure,selection and arrangement' of those APIs)

Oracle hedged, and said "they're integral to the platform, but not the
language" which is a bare faced lie that is demonstrably false.

Goggle said less than half, and the rest are based on standard industry
practices.






[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Copyright Infringement Assertions and Trial Dates
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT
"Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of the 37
Java APIs."

Wow! I downloaded the Android source once. If I recall
correctly, it was about 1.7 GB. All I have to say is that
those 37 API's must be really something to think that Google
could derive all of the Android source from them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

selection, structure, and organization are irrelevant
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT
The 37 APIs but only as to their specific selection, structure, and organization, it being conceded that the implementing code is different. Please identify the media of fixation for the selection, structure, and organization.
Hopefully Google will inform this judge about Java's lack of named parameters! That means position in the API is fixed and can not change unless the API is changed. If the language does support named parameters then these are equivalent API calls:
what2wear('red', 'dress','everyday')
what2wear(color='red', clothes='dress', day='everyday')
what2wear(day='everyday', color='red', clothes='dress')
But the last call would not work correctly for Java (I gave up Java a very long time ago so I don't remember what works). That means that there can be only one way to call a Java API. Also for any language saying what2wear('everyday', 'red', 'dress') would be incorrect.

Alternatively, while there is creativity in generating the API, the subsequent selection, structure, and organization are facts (if that is the correct terminology here) because there is only one way to describe a specific Java API. Consequently, reverse engineering such as using a decompiler of Java programs easily identifies the selection, structure, and organization of API calls with the same parameters. Here Java's lack of named parameters means that all API calls to the same function with the same arguments are exactly the same. This should make selection, structure, and organization of an API trivially discoverable and, thus, unprotectable unless reverse engineering of Java software is illegal. Note that different arguments submitted to the same function are handled by method overloading, which to me means that there is a different API for each situation implemented.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT
    • Wha??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
      • Wha??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT
        • Wha??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2012 @ 05:00 AM EDT
          • Wha??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2012 @ 08:15 PM EDT
    • Not quite - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT
    • Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT
  • Java's answer to named parameters - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT
Great question
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT
"Please identify the media of fixation for the selection,
structure, and organization."

Oracle has been dancing around the question of what exactly
is "the API" - the spec or the implementation or some
abstraction?
The API is only copyrightable if Sun/Oracle wrote it down.

But Oracle says they are not suing over the spec, and Google
says they didn't copy the implementation. It seems Oracle
is trying to claim copyright on an abstraction, independent
of any particular expression. This is like claiming
copyright on the plot of a novel.

In practice, you can show copying of a novel (protected
expression) by showing extreme similarity of plot
(abstraction). But that's just evidence that somebody
copied (and modified) the novel itself, which is all that
copyright law protects. The plot is too abstract to be
copyrightable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Things are looking up
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT
The copyright stuff is google's to lose. Not that they couldn't lose it, but
still, let me imagine that they do a really good job...

I can see it now. After three weeks of back and forth with Oracle's lawyers
doing their dance, the judge will direct the jury that no reasonable man could
find that google infringed, so on this matter they are to find for google, and
oh, BTW, now they get to sit there and hear these same petulant greedy shysters
whine for another three weeks about patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Copyright Infringement Assertions and Trial Dates
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT
So since Google is accused of infringing the "Plain English
descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the API
“specifications...", I guess many of the 350 Java Programming
books in Google Play are also infringing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"idea-expression divide" - Missing from this API discussion?
Authored by: RMAC9.5 on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 02:43 PM EDT
In a previous thread I suggested that Judge Alsup did not understand Google's "APIs are functional" argument because he studied mathematics, instead of programing, as an undergraduate. I mentioned that no matter how difficult, creative, or elegant a mathematical proof was, it was not copyrightable and that a respected, well known, programer like Linus should tell him that computer programers/programs "exchange information" like mathematicians do. Before making this claim, I did a "copyright mathematics" Google search to verify that it was true and learned that mathematical formulas, proofs, etc. are not copyrightable because it is impossible to separate the idea from its expression (i.e the idea-expression divide). Can we programmers argue that, like a mathematical proof, it is impossible to separate the API from its function?

[ Reply to This | # ]

FUD and Calumny
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
It's pleasing to see the number of posts on this page expressing
surprise that Oracle is persisting in its erroneous postulate that
an API and its specification can be freely interchanged in legal
discourse. Right from the start I figured that Oracle
1. did not know the difference, and thus should be beaten
about the head with a cluestick; or
2. did know the difference and was deliberately confusing
the Court, and thus should be beaten about the head with
something more punitive.

And now the Perry Mason moment: Google walks into court and says,
"No, we did not copy Oracle's APIs or the specifications.
"We copied them from Apache Harmony. If Oracle thinks
"Harmony copied Oracle's APIs, Oracle should sue Harmony"

Of course that last sentence would never need to be said,
because it would be obviously implicit, and because Google
would never dob in another open source project like that.
Google don't even need to have this Perry Mason moment,
because it's a matter of Public Record, so this lawsuit must
owe its existence to Oracle's desire to sue Google as a
proxy for Harmony. In spite of the laches, estoppel, exhaustion
and implicit licenses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Open sourcing Java isn't magic
Authored by: jjon on Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT
One thing I note on that list is the exception of the Java language source code from things not accused. If the Java language is available under the GNU General Public License, then that source code should not be excepted in this instance.

I don't think it works like that. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld an open source license, and ruled that "Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material". The GPL includes conditions that you must credit the original author when copying the work, and include the GPL license blurb. So if Google copied some GPL'd Sun code without copying the attribution, then they can be found liable for that.

Alternatively, if Google copied from the proprietary Java source code before it was GPL'd, then they could be liable for damages for the period before Java was GPL'd. And of course the GPL notices wouldn't be there so they would also be liable for damages for the period after Java was GPL'd.

(For the record, my understanding is that the only literal copying is of some test files, so the damages should be tiny - I hope less than $100k. And of course, Oracle's API theory is completely bonkers and I hope they get ground into the dust on that one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More questions to ask Oracle
Authored by: jbb on Friday, April 06 2012 @ 06:25 AM EDT
Oracle said:
... an application programmer does not need a license to the APIs from Oracle to author and distribute a program in the Java programming language (even if it includes calls to the APIs), ...
Why doesn't an application programmer need a license in order to use the Java APIs? Isn't an application program that uses the APIs a derivative work of those APIs? Doesn't it make use of exactly the same information you are suing Google for using? Are you claiming that the use of APIs in an application is always fair use? Have you already given an explicit (or implicit) license to application programmers which allows them to use your copyrighted APIs?

What about clean room implementations? Why has the software industry been using clean room implementations to avoid copyright violations if, according to your theory, a clean room implementation would still violate copyright?

What about a translation program? What if Google decides it doesn't want to use your APIs anymore. Would it be legal for them to write a translation program that converts your API calls (in application source code) into Google's new API calls? It seems that such a translation program would help Google to stop violating your copyright. But on one hand, if such a translation program were legal to use then it would mean your copyright on the APIs would be meaningless because the translation program could be added to Google's build chain and you have already admitted that the application programs are free to use your APIs without a license. On the other hand, if such translations were not legal without your blessing then copyright protection of your APIs would give you a state sponsored monopoly over not just the APIs and every reimplementation of those APIs but also over the running of every single program ever written in Java.

---
Shirky Principle: Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All of Android can't be a derivative work
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2012 @ 08:22 AM EDT
If anyone can write a Java program according to Oracle, then only the JVM and
infringing libraries should be considered a derived work. Much of Android is C
code, as well as Java programs. If all of Android is considered infringing, then
any Java program would be considered infringing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of Its Protection"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT
by Pamela Samuelson

"As the Court in Baker warned more than a century and a
quarter ago, courts should be careful to ensure that
copyright protection for functional writings is not used to
get patent-like protection for technical innovations that
might qualify for, but have not met, patent standards."

This is a must read it really clears everything up. Baker vs
Selden pretty much lays the basic groundwork as to what the
limitations of copyright are and why.

It is interesting to note that in the 60s and 70s it was
common understanding that computer programs should not be
copyrightable at all, which makes a lot of sense if you read
the background logic in Baker. The essence of the matter is,
if you want protection for your functional immaterial goods
then you must go thru the proper process of applying for a
patent protection, which is significantly more stringent of
a process and it also costs more. But it is the proper way
which the law requires for many good reasons.

What Oracle is trying to do is get patent level protection
for their API specification without going thru the proper
process and invest the money and time that this requires as
codified by patent law.

If Googles defense drives this point home to the jury, I
think even very common people on a jury will understand
quickly what this is all about and rule against Oracle for
trying to break the rules by gaming the copyright system to
get around the far more costly and risky patent
applications to protect their API.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"The Human Element" - Missing from this API Discussion?
Authored by: RMAC9.5 on Friday, April 06 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT
As a graybeard application programmer for 35+ years, I have seen application programs "exchange information" in many novel and creative ways and believe that API "creativity" is limited only by the imagination of their creators. However, none of this "creativity" negates the fundamental fact or axiom that APIs are always 100% functional. Perhaps, the best way to explain this to Judge Alsup is to point out that APIs also control how application programs "exchange information" with humans!
David Orenstein, in a Computerworld article from a dozen years ago QuickStudy: Application Programming Interface (API), does a very nice job of explaining APIs in "plain English" and even hints at the concept of "Human APIs" when he begins his article with
"You often have to rely on others to perform functions that you may not be able or permitted to do by yourself, such as opening a bank safety deposit box."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )