Slides from a presentation I gave at the Boston Bar Association in November 2013. Subject: Oracle v. Google copyright case

1. Oracle v. Google
Are APIs Copyrightable?
Boston Bar Association
November 13, 2013
Lee Gesmer
Gesmer Updegrove LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
Copyright Gesmer Updegrove LLP 2013
www.gesmer.com
Wednesday, November 13, 13

2. District Court:
2
To what extent, if at all, are certain
replicated elements of the structure,
sequence and organization of the Java
application programming interface (API)
protected by copyright?
www.gesmer.com
Wednesday, November 13, 13

3. 3
•Android and the Java API
•Software Copyright Law
•District Court Trial/Ruling
•Issues on Appeal
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

4. 4
Java/Android Timeline:
•1996
•2005
•2007
•2008
•2010
-
Sun releases Java
Google acquires Android
Google releases Android Kit
First Android phone
Oracle purchases Sun (Java)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

5. Larry Ellison
5
• 2010 - Oracle sues Google
• 2012 - Trial and decision on infringement
• 2013 - Appeal (argument: 12-4-13)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

6. 6
Android Mobile OS
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

7. Android - Most widely used smartphone
OS platform
Samsung Galaxy S4
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
7

8. Android OS
JAVA virtual machine
API PACKAGES
15 million lines code
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
8
www.gesmer.com

9. Google development of Android
9
“Clean Room” using 40,000
page Java spec
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

10. Google development of Android
10
Clean Room:
• “Java virtual machine”
• Java API “implementing code” (2.8
million lines)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

11. Google development of Android
11
But:
copied verbatim Java “declaring
code” (7,000 lines)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

12. Android
12
- Android not marketed as Java
- Android not fully
interoperable with Java
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

13. Android
13
- 750,000 devices a day
- 1 billion devices activated
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

14. 14
The Java Platform
and the Java API
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

15. Java - “Write Once, Run Anywhere”
Java Programming
Language (JPL)
JAVA API
Declaring Code
7,000 lines
15
Java API
Implementing Code
2.8 million lines
Java Virtual Machine
Host OS (IBM/Apple, Android)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

16. Java Implementing Code
2.8 million lines
16
- methods (subroutines) (6,000+)
- classes (600)
- packages (166) - Google used 37
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

17. Form of Java declaring code
17
37 packages
600+ classes
6,000+ methods
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

18. Java API Declarations (Methods)
18
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

19. Google Opening Statement
19
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

20. Google
20
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

21. Google
21
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

22. Oracle
Chutes and Ladders
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
22
www.gesmer.com

23. Oracle
23
Schematic
of 50-Story Office
Building
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

24. Oracle
24
Java API =
Chapter titles,
topic sentences
“Ann Droid”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

25. Judge’s analogy
25
Package ~ bookshelf (166 - 37 at issue)
Class ~ book (600)
Method (subroutine) ~ chapter (6,000+)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

26. Brief History of the
Evolution of
Software Copyright
Law
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
26

27. 17 U.S.C. 102 (1976)
(a) “Copyright protection subsists . . .in 27
original works of authorship fixed in any
tangible medium of expression, now
known or later developed ....”
(b) In no case does copyright protection
for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process,
system, method of operation, concept,
principle, or discovery ….
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

28. 17 U.S.C. § 101 . . . (1980)
28
A “computer program” is a set of
statements or instructions to be
used directly or indirectly in a
computer in order to bring about a
certain result.
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

29. Final Report of the National Commission on New
Technology Uses of Copyrighted Works
(“CONTU”) (1978)
“Should a line need to be drawn to
exclude certain manifestations of
programs from copyright, that line
should be drawn on a case-by-case
basis by the institution designed to
make fine distinctions – the federal
judiciary”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
29

30. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland
International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)
30
“Applying copyright law to
computer programs is like
assembling a jigsaw puzzle whose
pieces do not quite fit”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

31. Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental
Laboratory, Inc.,797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir.1986)
“The purpose or function of a utilitarian
work would be the work’s idea, and
everything that is not necessary to that
purpose or function would be part of the
expression of the idea. Because that idea
could be accomplished with a number of
different structures, the structure of the
program is part of the program’s
expression, not its idea.”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
31

32. Whelan v. Jaslow
32
“Structure, sequence and organization”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

33. Computer Associates International, Inc. v.
Altai, 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992):
“outdated appreciation of computer
science”
“. . . relies too heavily on
metaphysical distinctions and does not
place enough emphasis on practical
considerations.”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
33

34. Computer Associates v. Altai
34
"abstraction-filtration-comparison"
“analytic dissection”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

35. abstraction
Java Programming
Language (JPL)
JAVA API
Declaring Code
7,000 lines
35
Java API Implementing
Code
2.8 million
Java Virtual Machine
Host OS (IBM/Apple, Android)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

36. Altai - filtration of plaintiff’s work:
•Ideas (idea/expression dichotomy)
• Merger
• Scenes a faire (standard treatment in genre)
• Functionality
• Compatibility requirements
• Technical standards/industry demands
• Efficient implementation
• External factors
• Public domain
• Simplicity/ease of use
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
36

37. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland
International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir.
1995)
"method of operation," as that term is
used in § 102(b), refers to the means by
which a person operates something ...
The Lotus menu command hierarchy
does not merely explain and present
Lotus 1-2-3’s functional capabilities to
the user; it also serves as the method
by which the program is operated and
controlled”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
37

38. Lotus:
38
The set of words, through which people use
or manipulate or operate a system, is on the
uncopyrightable side of the 102(a)/102(b)
line
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

39. Lotus:
39
Java API:
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

40. Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir.
1993) and Sony v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596
(9th Cir. 2000)
- “Intermediate copying”
- Compatibility/interoperability
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
40

41. 2012 Trial
41
Judge William Alsup
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

42. Oracle at trial
• Structure, sequence, organization (SSO) of 37
packages/classes/methods
• Creativity
• API analagous to “taxonomy”
• Android not fully interoperable
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
42

43. Google at trial
• Leading SSO case (Whelan) not the law
• Verbatim API commands essental for
interoperability
•SSO of command structure essential for
interoperability
•Law does not require 100% interoperability
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
43

44. 44
Jury verdict
Did Google infringe the copyright in the
structure, sequence & organization of the APIs
in the 37 classes?
Jury: Yes
Is Google’s copying protected by fair use?
Jury: undecided (hung)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

45. 45
District Court
Ruling on
Copyrightability
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

46. Rule 50 JMOL Motion
46
Jury verdict on infringement of Java
SSO set aside
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,872 F.
Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (Judge
William Alsop)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

47. District Court:
Issue:
47
“The extent to which, if at all,
certain replicated elements of the
structure, sequence and
organization of the Java
application programming interface
are protected by copyright”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

48. District Court:
48
“No law is directly on point. This
order relies on general principles of
copyright law ....”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

49. District Court:
verbatim copies (vs SSO)
49
“source code at issue includes
"declarations." Significantly, the rules
of Java dictate the precise form of
certain necessary lines of code called
declarations, whose precise and
necessary form explains why Android
and Java must be identical when it
comes to those particular lines of
code.”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

50. District Court:
verbatim copies -
50
“In order to declare a particular
functionality, the language
demands that the method
declaration take a particular form.
There is no choice in how to
express it.”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

51. District Court:
SSO -
51
“Oracle's best argument . . . is that
while no single name is copyrightable,
Java's overall system of organized
names — covering 37 packages, with
over six hundred classes, with over six
thousand methods — is a "taxonomy"
and, therefore, copyrightable”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

52. District Court:
SSO -
52
“Structure, sequence and organization ...
is a phrase that crept into use to
describe a residual property right where
literal copying was absent. A question
then arises whether the copyright holder
is more appropriately asserting an
exclusive right to a functional system,
process, or method of operation that
belongs in the realm of patents, not
copyrights”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

53. District Court:
SSO -
53
“that phrase [SSO] has not been reused by the Ninth Circuit since
1989”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

54. District Court:
SSO -
54
“the Whelan approach has given way
to the Computer Associates
approach”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

55. District Court:
SSO -
55
“Many different API organizations could
supply the same overall range of
functionality. They would not, however,
be interoperable. Specifically, code
written for one API would not run on an
API organized differently, for the name
structure itself dictates the precise form
of command to call up any given
method.”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

56. Form of Java Declarations
56
- Package ~ bookshelf (166 - 37 at issue)
- Class ~ book (600)
- Method (subroutine) ~ chapter (6,000)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

57. District Court:
SSO -
57
“Yes, it is creative. Yes, it is original. Yes,
it resembles a taxonomy.”
“. . . But it is nevertheless a command
structure, a system or method of
operation — a long hierarchy of over six
thousand commands to carry out preassigned functions. For that reason, it
cannot receive copyright protection”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

58. 58
“Degree of interoperability”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

59. District Court:
“degree of interoperability” -
59
“Millions of line of code had been
written in Java before Android
arrived ... Such code was owned by the
developers, not by Oracle. In order for
at least some of this code to run on
Android, Google was required to
provide the same command system”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

60. District Court:
“degree of interoperability” -
60
Google was free to duplicate the
command structure for the 37
packages,in Android in order to
accommodate third-party source
code relying on the 37 packages
(taking care to write its own
implementations).
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

61. District Court:
“Degree of interoperability” -
61
Contrary to Oracle, “full
compatibility” is not relevant to
the Section 102(b) analysis.”
Sony v. Connectix - involved subset
of functions
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

62. District Court:
Oracle v. Google test? -
62
“functional [expressive] aspects
necessary for compatibility (not
copyrightable)
versus
copying functional [expressive]
aspects unnecessary for
compatibility (possibly
copyrightable).”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

63. 63
Oracle Appeal
to CAFC
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

64. Oracle:
64
. . . Ann Droid . . .
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

65. Oracle:
“Ann Droid wants to publish a bestseller. So
she sits down with a copy of Harry Potter
and the Order of the Phoenix .... She
verbatim copies all the chapter titles—from
Chapter 1 (“Dudley Demented”) to Chapter
38 (“The Second War Begins”). She copies
verbatim the topic sentences of each
paragraph, starting from the first (highly
descriptive) one and continuing, in order, to
the last, simple one (“Harry nodded.”).”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
65

66. Oracle:
66
Defendant Google Inc. has copied a
blockbuster literary work just as surely, and
as improperly, as Ann Droid
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

67. Oracle:
67
“If Ann Droid had paraphrased in the same
order every chapter title and topic sentence
without copying a single word verbatim, the
entire plot that she copied—the structure,
sequence, and organization of the overall
work— would be protected. ...
This principle applies equally to software.”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

68. 68
Software API ~ imaginative fiction?
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

69. Works of fiction
Historical/biographical works
Textbooks
Compilations
Expressive/functional elements in software
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
69

70. Oracle:
70
• “Software exceptionalism”
• Google copied a “magnum opus”
• No ex post Altai filtration process
• Interoperability irrelevant to
copyrightability
• Partial interoperability/fragmentation
• Court “over-dissected” API
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

71. Oracle re verbatim copying -
“Google Concedes Away the Entire
Case”
“To start, Google concedes that it
literally copied 7,000 lines of declaring
code . . . collapsing the challenge on
appeal to a single question: Is there
any protected expression at all in
either the copied code or the copied
structure”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
71

72. Oracle trial counsel:
“Our case is not about the taking of any
individual or even any small set of method
declarations. Our case is about the
comprehensive taking of the structure,
sequence and organization of the computer
programs as defined by the API specifications.
That structure, sequence and organization
includes method declarations at the
appropriate level. It is like the sub sub
subchapter in the outline structure. ...
[W]hat we are seeking to protect is our very
complex outline.”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
72

73. Oracle:
Uses partial quote:
73
“many ways to group the methods
yet still duplicate the same range of
functionality ...there were many
ways to group the methods yet still
duplicate the same range of
functionality.” (District Court)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

74. Excluding Court’s conclusion:
74
“Duplication of the command
structure is necessary for
interoperability”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

75. Oracle:
Interoperability
75
interoperability defense relevant
to fair use, not copyrightability
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

76. Computer Associates v. Altai:
Filtration step includes:
76
“(2) compatibility requirements of
other programs with which a program
is designed to operate in conjunction;
(3)computer manufacturers' design
standards; (4) demands of the industry
being serviced; and (5) widely
accepted programming practices
within the computer industry.”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

77. 77
Altai “filtration” At time of plaintiff’s writing, or at time
of infringement?
Ex ante or ex post?
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

78. Oracle:
78
Oracle: Ex ante (when work created)
Google: Ex post (when competing
product created)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

79. Oracle:
79
Fact that function requires
identical copy is does not deprive
work of copyrightability under
merger or interoperability
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

80. De facto standard
80
Can Java command structure lose
copyright protection by becoming a
de facto standard?
(analogy to generic trademark)
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

81. 81
Does CAFC need to “draw the line”
between 102(a) and (b)?
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

82. Possible CAFC test? 82
The set of words, through which
people use or manipulate or
operate a system is unprotected by
copyright law where necessary for
compatibility or interoperability ex
post
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

83. Or 83
Software commands that carry out
preassigned functions necessary for
interoperatibility ex post are
unprotected
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

84. Or -
APIs made available to programming
community and necessary for
interoperability ex post fall under
102(b)
Source code/object code not disclosed
to users, developers does not
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
84

85. Justice Ginsburg, Lotus, 1996
“I thought it was assumed that every one of
these process, system, method of operation
-- that you have to extract out of them what
is the expression, the separable
expression. . . . 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 of
looking at 102(b) than runs through all of
copyright. There's always the question, is
there separable expression?”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
85

86. Major questions facing CAFC
• Interoperability - copyrightability or fair
use? Partial or full?
• Altai filters: ex ante or ex post?
• Under what circumstances should
copyright law allow a free compulsory
license that permits copier to use
expressive aspects of a copyrighted work
to create an interoperative derivative
work?
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
86

87. Does copyright “de minimis doctrine” apply
to “rangeCheck”?
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
87

88. De minimis copying
88
“range-Check” Function:
9 lines of code out of 15 million
tested by Oracle
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

89. De minimis copying
89
Court:
“an innocent and inconsequential
instance of copying in the context
of a massive number of lines of
code”
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

90. De minimis copying
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 of
programming myself in other languages. I
have written blocks of code like
rangeCheck a hundred times or more. You
could do it. It is so simple.
There was no way that you could say that
that was speeding them along to the
marketplace. That is not a good argument.
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com
90

91. De minimis copying
91
MR. BOIES: Your Honor -JUDGE ALSOP: You're one of the best
lawyers in America. How can you even
make that argument?
You know, maybe the answer is because
you are so good it sounds legit. But it is
not legit. That is not a good argument.
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com

92. 92
Thank You!
Slides will be available on:
masslawblog.com
11-13-2013
Wednesday, November 13, 13
www.gesmer.com