Appeals Court Considers Overturning Ruling That APIs Can't Be Covered By Copyright

Copyright

from the and-on-and-on-it-goes dept

Back in May 2012, Judge William Alsup (yes, he’s popular today) issued a very good and very thorough ruling explaining why APIs could not be covered by copyright. Alsup, who claimed he learned to program in Java to better understand the technical details of the case, went into a fair bit of detail in his ruling, which looked like it was clearly designed to explain basic programming concepts to an appeals court who would surely be hearing the case — and almost certainly with judges who had less (if any) programming knowledge. The appeal was officially heard by the Federal Circuit appeals court (CAFC) today and there are some reports suggesting that the judges are skeptical of Alsup’s ruling and may be leaning towards overturning it. Reading through some of the details it appears that at least one judge is clearly on Oracle’s side in believing that APIs can be covered by copyright, while it’s not as clear where the other two judges on the panel sit.

Given CAFC’s history as exceptionally supportive of locking up knowledge and information on the patent side, it wouldn’t be terribly surprising if they did so as well on the copyright side (side note: while, normally, copyright cases should travel up the local appeals court route, since this case started as a patent case, even though it ended up as a copyright case, apparently the appeal still goes to CAFC, the court that hears all patent appeals). This is yet another issue with having a court like CAFC, which has long appeared to be captured by those who support a maximalist view of intellectual property.

Still, oral hearings in appeals are not always indicative of how judges are leaning. Reading the tea leaves there is often quite dangerous. The hearing sometimes focus on tangents, or involve judges really trying to test out a particular theory, and final rulings may be more strongly based on the written filings (and, sometimes, briefs from amici — of which there were quite a few in this case). This case still has a long way to go, but hopefully the appeals court recognizes the careful level of detail that judge Alsup went into in determining that APIs do not deserve copyright protection.

Filed Under: android, api, cafc, copyright, java
Companies: google, oracle

Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It

Too Much Free Time

from the well-that's-awkward dept

So, there’s been this slightly weird tangent in the Oracle/Google patent & copyright dispute, in which Judge Alsup — for reasons that are still not clear to anyone — ordered both companies to disclose the names of any “authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in [the] case.” Both sides made filings last week, with Oracle disclosing — as was already public — that it had blogger Florian Mueller on staff as a consultant, and mentioning an Oracle employee who blogged about the case. Google, on the other hand, told the court that it hadn’t paid anyone to comment on the case at all, but did mention that in the course of its regular activities, it does give money to various companies, some of whom may have had employees who commented on the story. Judge Alsup came back earlier this week and told Google it didn’t try hard enough and to find some names to name.

Earlier today, Google did its filing and apparently found some names… including mine! Yes, I know that we’ve had some haters declaring for years that I’m a Google shill, so this must be the confirmation of all their conspiracy theories, rumors and attacks, right? Well, no. I’m named in the section about CCIA — the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Why? Because CCIA sponsored some research that we did. Here’s what the filing states:

The CCIA has commissioned studies by Mike Masnick, CEO of Floor64. See http://www.floor64.com/about.php. Mr. Masnick has commented on the case on the TechDirt website and on his personal friendfeed.com account. See Ex. X (available at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/11050519050/boom-jury-says-no-patentinfringement- google-oracle-case.shtml and at http://friendfeed.com/mmasnick/a3a94012/jurygoogle- did-not-infringe-on-oracle-patents).

And, yes, CCIA has commissioned a study by my company (Floor64) which I co-authored. And that’s, uh, public knowledge. Here’s my post back in January announcing the Sky is Rising report, in which it says, upfront, that it was sponsored by CCIA. And, of course, you can go check out the Sky is Rising report yourself directly, which has a nice big CCIA logo on the front. Hell, if you want, you can also donate some money for the ebook version — and it, too, will come with the CCIA logo.

I’m not sure how that has anything to do with Google. Google is a CCIA member, as are a bunch of other companies. And, honestly, if you’d asked me yesterday, I would have said that I thought Oracle was a CCIA member too, because it’s an organization that represents a bunch of top tech companies, including Microsoft, eBay, Sprint, Facebook, AMD, Fujitsu, Dish Networks and more. However, it appears that Oracle is not a CCIA member, though I only learned this today from the filing, which also notes that Oracle and Sun used to be CCIA members. So, I’m not sure what any of that says about anything.

And, of course, if the point of this exercise is to uncover “shills” who are really speaking on behalf of companies without disclosing it, once again this argument falls down. My position on issues related to copyright and patents has been pretty damn consistent since before Google existed. And that continues up until today. I will regularly call out Google for patent and copyright behavior that I believe is bad. And that’s because I say what I think. The editorial content of this site has never been for sale, nor will it ever be. Because the only way I survive in this business is with my reputation.

Also, I’m not sure what’s with the Friendfeed link in the filing. To be honest, I’d completely forgotten about Friendfeed, which I thought was shut down after Facebook bought the company. But I believe my Friendfeed just sucked in my Twitter account and Techdirt’s Twitter account into a single feed. And apparently it lives on without my knowledge.

Separately, because all of this struck me as interesting, I remembered that we did some work with Oracle too! And, just as with what we did with CCIA, it was disclosed publicly at the time. Oracle (along with Intel) sponsored a section of our site, and a series of webinars that we did. And yet, Oracle did not disclose me in their original filing and I don’t believe that they filed a new filing here either. Of course, as with CCIA, our relationship with Oracle did not include them having any say in editorial either. In fact, with the order as broad as it was from Judge Alsup, I’d argue that there’s a much stronger argument that I should be in the Oracle filing than the Google one. But, of course, Oracle didn’t include us because it was a random blog sponsorship thing they did a while back which had nothing to do with editorial (or even intellectual property issues).

In the end, this comes right back to some of the concerns that were raised about Judge Alsup’s broad order in the first place. If you want to find tenuous connections, they exist. In fact, Google’s filing lists out a bunch of other names (including many people who I know or consider friends), almost all of whom have a long, long history of holding the exact same positions, and where the connection to “Google money” is, at best, weak.

Like many folks, I was curious to see who would be named on both of these lists, but the order was so broad that it seems to have swept me up into it (on one side, though a broad reading says it would make more sense for me to be on the other one!), and that’s silly. I’m a big boy and I can handle people not understanding the details here and attacking me, but the fact that we did unrelated research for a different organization that Google is a member of — and that gets me named on a list of “shills” just doesn’t seem right.

Filed Under: bloggers, commentary, disclosures, shills
Companies: ccia, floor64, google, oracle

Google Asks For $4 Million In Legal Fees From Oracle

Legal Issues

from the sliding-backwards dept

Having lost its patent/copyright case against Google in somewhat spectacular fashion, Oracle is now facing the possibility of having to also pay Google over $4 million in legal fees. Google has submitted its calculation of legal fees that it’s seeking from Oracle, and it totals up to $4,030,669. Of course, this case is heading for appeal, so this number may be meaningless. However, it does suggest that Oracle — which once seemed to believe this case might bring it billions of dollars — may quickly discover that it’s costing an awful lot instead…

Filed Under: api, appeal, damages, java
Companies: google, oracle

EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't

Legal Issues

from the good-for-them dept

You may remember that a couple years ago, an appeals court in the US ruled that, when dealing with software, as long as the provider calls what it sells “a license” rather than a “sale” it can take away your first sale rights. As you hopefully know, first sale rights are what let you resell goods that have copyright-covered material in them — such as books — without asking for permission from the copyright holder. However, for reasons that still don’t make any sense, the 9th Circuit seems to think that as long as something is purely digital, first sale no longer applies.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, so while technically the ruling still only applies in the 9th Circuit, it’s what most consider to be the state of the law in the US (there is always the possibility a different circuit court could disagree and it could go back to the Supreme Court — and one could argue that some other rulings in the 9th Circuit already conflict — but for now, the Autodesk case is widely considered the standard). There is, also, the upcoming ReDigi case, of which there’s a decent profile in the Boston Globe — but that’s focused on music, and it’s not entirely clear how that one will come out either.

Over in Europe, however, it appears that the European Court of Justice (who has been pushing out some relatively insightful rulings on copyright issues lately) seems to recognize just how ridiculous the 9th Circuit’s view on first sale and software really is. In a new ruling, it has upheld the right of first sale on software, basically saying that you are buying a license and that license is resellable.

The specific case involved a company, UsedSoft, that was trying to create a market in reselling used software. Oracle sued, claiming that its license agreement specifically stated that it could not be resold. However, the court found that the right of first sale applied. In the court’s language, it talks about copyright “exhaustion” which is the idea that once you’ve sold something you’ve “exhausted” your right to control it.

It makes no difference, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whether the copy of the computer program was made available to the customer by the rightholder concerned by means of a download from the rightholder’s website or by means of a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD. Even if, in the latter case too, the rightholder formally separates the customer’s right to use the copy of the program supplied from the operation of transferring the copy of the program to the customer on a material medium, the operation of downloading from that medium a copy of the computer program and that of concluding a licence agreement remain inseparable from the point of view of the acquirer, for the reasons set out in paragraph 44 above. Since an acquirer who downloads a copy of the program concerned by means of a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD and concludes a licence agreement for that copy receives the right to use the copy for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee, it must be considered that those two operations likewise involve, in the case of the making available of a copy of the computer program concerned by means of a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD, the transfer of the right of ownership of that copy.

There are some interesting side notes on this. First, the court also rules that if Oracle promised free maintenance updates to the original licensee, it must continue to provide those to whomever purchased the “used” software. However, it also puts a couple of limitations on this. The first one is somewhat obvious: the seller of the used license can no longer be using the software. Oracle argued that this would be hard to track, but the court rightly points out that this is the same issue that those who sell software on CD-ROMs and DVDs face, but they figure out how to survive:

As Oracle rightly observes, ascertaining whether such a copy has been made unusable may prove difficult. However, a copyright holder who distributes copies of a computer program on a material medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD is faced with the same problem, since it is only with great difficulty that he can make sure that the original acquirer has not made copies of the program which he will continue to use after selling his material medium. To solve that problem, it is permissible for the distributor – whether ‘classic’ or ‘digital’ – to make use of technical protective measures such as product keys.

Separately, however, the court ruled that you cannot divvy up the number of seats in a license and sell them individually. That is, if you buy a 100 seat license to some software, and are only using 50, you can’t then sell just those other 50 seats. This ruling says that the first sale only applies to the entire license agreement, basically.

There is some disagreement as to how “big” an impact this ruling will have. To be honest, I’m not convinced that the overall impact will be that large, but I think it is a good thing that the court appears to recognize that you cannot contract away certain rights granted to you under copyright. Copyright holders have long tried to remove the limitations and exceptions of copyright law through contracts and “licenses.” Recognizing that those limitations and exceptions really do exist is important, and it’s good to see the EU Court of Justice release a clear ruling on that issue.

Filed Under: europe, european court of justice, first sale, resale, scotus, software license
Companies: oracle, usedsoft

Even The Judge Wonders What Oracle Is Up To As It Asks For $0 In Copyright Damages From Google

Legal Issues

from the procedural dept

Having lost both its patent and copyright claims against Google in somewhat spectacular fashion (remember when it was claiming billions in damages?), Oracle recently agreed in court that it was fine with receiving $0 in statutory damages for the short snippets of code that were copied. This even took the judge by surprise, who asked if there was a “catch” he should be aware of. The issue is one that is really more procedural than anything else: everyone realizes that the only thing that matters now is what happens in the appeal, and if Oracle happens to win the appeal, it can revisit the damages question. Either way, however, it is a bit symbolic to see Oracle “accept” $0 in damages. And, of course, there is still one more part to this round in district court, which is that Google is expected to seek attorneys’ fees from Oracle as well — meaning that Oracle’s plan to get billions from Google may turn into not just a loss, but a really, really expensive loss.

Filed Under: api, appeal, damages, java
Companies: google, oracle

Oracle Sues To Stop Lodsys Patent Trolling

Patents

from the oh-irony dept

Oracle apparently has no sense of irony when it comes to patents. The day after a judge issued a complete smackdown in Oracle’s “big” patent and copyright lawsuit against Google, Oracle has suddenly decided that it doesn’t like patent bullies. Well, as long as the bully isn’t Oracle. It filed its own case against Lodsys — the quite infamous patent troll that has been threatening and suing tons of companies for daring to do in-app payments. Apparently, Lodsys has targeted Oracle customers and the company has had enough. It’s actually good to see more tech companies fight back against Lodsys, but it does seem a bit odd on the timing for Oracle, given its over-emphasis on the importance of not violating patents in the earlier case.

Filed Under: apps, irony, patent troll
Companies: lodsys, oracle

Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims

Legal Issues

from the a-bit-narrowly-focused dept

Well, well. A few weeks ago, the jury in the Google/Oracle lawsuit ruled that Google infringed on a very small amount of Java API, but as we noted it was still an open question (and one for the judge to rule on) whether or not APIs were even eligible to be covered by copyright. In the second phase of the case, the jury completely rejected the idea that Google had infringed on Oracle’s patents. So all that left was the 37 APIs. And that tiny “win” for Oracle is now gone as well, as the judge has ruled that those particular APIs are not covered by copyright:

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.

As some have pointed out the ruling is somewhat narrowly focused just on these 37 APIs, but the principles involved in why those 37 APIs are not copyrightable certainly will apply to plenty of other APIs as well. The ruling itself (embedded below) is pretty thorough and detailed. We had noted earlier that Judge Alsup had admitted that he’d learned to code Java in order to better understand the case (and that he’d had a history of knowing other coding languages as well) — and it shows. Rather than using braindead broad analogies that don’t make much sense, as we see all too often in court rulings, Alsup gets to the heart of the matter and clearly understands what an API is and how it works. His ruling is actually a decent primer on some parts of code for those who have never coded.

From that, Alsup points out just how ridiculous this entire case has been — and specifically notes that he’s explaining the level of ridiculousness of Oracle’s position for the benefit of the appeals court who will surely hear this case once Oracle appeals (and which almost certainly will be staffed with judges not nearly as clued-in as Judge Alsup).

Oracle has made much of nine lines of code that crept into both Android and Java. This circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of appeals.

He goes on to explain not just how insignificant the situation was, but he details how it happened and why it’s crazy to consider it worthy of a copyright infringement suit. It’s a pretty complete smackdown of Oracle’s position.

Again, it is quite likely that Oracle will appeal, even though this ruling is so firm it might be smarter for Oracle to issue a giant apology to the tech community and just get on with doing business. That seems unlikely, of course, as Oracle probably hopes to find less knowledgeable judges on appeal. One hopes, however, that the appeals court judges will recognize the very, very thorough nature of Judge Alsup’s ruling, and reject any appeal as well.

Filed Under: android, api, copyright, java, william alsup
Companies: google, oracle

Boom: Jury Says No Patent Infringement By Google In Oracle Case

Legal Issues

from the there-goes-that-one dept

Remember back when Oracle was claiming that Google owed it billions of dollars for infringing on Oracle patents and copyrights? Yeah. Forget that. The jury just said that there’s no patent infringement at all and the judge has dismissed the jury. All that’s left in this phase of the case is for the judge to make a determination over the copyright issue — and if he decides APIs cannot be covered by copyright, Oracle will have a complete and total loss. Of course, Oracle will almost certainly appeal, but this case has turned into something of a complete disaster for the company.

Groklaw has the details with “no” answers across the board:

Clerk:

Question 1: has Oracle proved by preponderance of evidence that Google infringed?

Claim 11: not proven
27: no
29: no
39: no
40: no
41: no

Question 2: not proven

1: no
20: no

Question 3: no answer, no response, not applicable.

Filed Under: android, api, java
Companies: google, oracle