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.


To read comments to this article, go here
Oracle v. Google - Judge Alsup Rules APIs Not Protected By Copyright - UPDATE 1 ~mw
Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:25 PM EDT

We have just received the news that Judge Alsup ruled against Oracle, finding that APIs are not subject to copyright protection. In a 41-page opinion (1202 [PDF]), Judge Alsup summarized his ruling as follows:

So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality even when the implementation is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.

It is true that the very same functionality could have been offered in Android without duplicating the exact command structure used in Java. This could have been done by re-arranging the various methods under different groupings among the various classes and packages (even if the same names had been used). In this sense, there were many ways to group the methods yet still duplicate the same range of functionality.

But the names are more than just names they are symbols in a command structure wherein the commands take the form

java.package.Class.method()

Each command calls into action a pre-assigned function. The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability.
In his analysis Judge Alsup displays an understanding of programming and of the Java language that is not to be expected from a federal judge. He has also been very thorough in his review of the law. He has done his best to assure that this decision will withstand the anticipated appeal.

At the same time, the Court has also ruled on the equitable defenses posed by Google (1203 [PDF]). The Court found the defenses of implied license and waiver to be ineffective. At the same time, the Court withheld its determination of the applicability of the defenses of laches and equitable estoppel, stating that it would only decide those issues if the case is remanded on appeal.

Finally, Judge Alsup has called for a case management conference to be held on June 21 to address what further proceedings are needed. (1204 [PDF]) Given this decision and the earlier stipulation with respect to damages, it is likely that this case is now closed.

Oracle has nothing to show for all of its efforts.

For those who have depended on the self-described patent expert for your understanding of this case . . . well, maybe now you will know better than to trust a paid spokesman.


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

Docket

05/31/2012 - 1202 - ORDER RE COPYRIGHTABILITY OF CERTAIN REPLICATED ELEMENTS OF THE JAVA APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACE by Judge William Alsup [granting 984 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; granting 1007 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; finding as moot 1105 Motion for New Trial]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 - 1203 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON EQUITABLE DEFENSES re 1049 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Oracle America, Inc., 1047 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Google Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 31, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

05/31/2012 - 1204 - NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 31, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012) (Entered: 05/31/2012)



  View Printable Version


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 )