Download Java vs. Android - DWT Digital Counsel

(Almost) Live from the Federal Circuit, it's…
Java vs. Android
A Blow-by-Blow Account of a Major Battle in the
Smartphone Wars – Do APIs Have Copyright Protection?
Presented by Lance Koonce, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Twitter: @LHKoonce Email: [email protected]
dwt.com
The Backstory – Sun Creates Java
 Java platform developed by James Gosling at Sun Microsystems
in early 1990s
 Released in 1996, now one of most popular programming
languages in use (as of 2012, 9 million developers using Java)
 Java’s “write once, run anywhere” premise: once coded in Java,
a program need not be recompiled for different platforms
dwt.com
The Backstory – Java’s Components
 Java is a programming language, but platform also includes
packages of regularly-used programs, organized in libraries
 These packages are APIs -- Application Programming Interfaces
 APIs consist of (1) declaring code; and (2) implementing code
 APIs are like short cuts: programmer does not have to use them
to write code in Java, but makes coding more efficient
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Backstory – Google Acquires Android
 Android Inc. founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner et al.
 Google purchased Android in 2005
 Beginning in late 2005, Google discussed partnership with Sun
that would allow Google to use Java in developing Android
 Parties tell differing stories about what occurred, but they
reached an impasse and Google went its own direction
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Backstory -- Google Develops Android Using Aspects of
Java
 Google used Java in its development of Android, and some of
the Android libraries incorporate Java APIs
 Google launched Android in 2007, now has 80% of smartphone
market
 Believed it was free to use the Java APIs because they were
noncopyrightable subject matter
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Backstory – Copyright Basics
 Copyright extends to original works of authorship
 Congress has specifically mandated that software is protected
under the Copyright Act
– Software is protected as a “literary work”
– Numerous cases hold that copyright protects source and object code
 Protection covers not just the literal text of a literary work, but
also the structural and organizational elements of the work
– For a novel, this might include a detailed plot outline
– But even can cover the organizational elements of a phone book, if
sufficiently expressive
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Backstory – Copyright Basics
 Copyright does not protect ideas or concepts, only the
expression of such ideas/concepts:
– Example: Cannot protect the idea of someone waking up in a hospital
to find there’s been a zombie apocalypse while they were in a coma
– But, you can protect a particular expression of that idea:
 This idea/expression dichotomy is one of the fundamental
pillars of copyright law
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Backstory – Copyright Basics
 Section 102(b) of Copyright Act also says copyright will not extend to
functions, processes or methods of operation
 Codifies Baker v. Selden case (1879) that copyright in a book on
accounting did not extend to method described in book
– Can’t copy exact words, but anyone can use the same method
– Method would be protected, if at all, by patent law
 Does not mean if there is an idea, concept, method or functionality
embodied in work, entire work not protectable by copyright
– All works contain ideas/functionality at some “level of abstraction”
– Question is whether the idea and expression (or function and expression)
are so intermingled (merged) that they can’t be separated
– Courts ask whether there are multiple ways to express idea/function
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Backstory – Copyright Basics
 Copyright also does not cover elements of a work that are
dictated by external constraints
– For example, if a software developer is required to include a particular
line(s) of code in order for the software to interact with other software
already in the market, this might be deemed nonprotectable
 One work has been determined to be protected by copyright,
question turns to whether it has been copied (infringed)
 Even if use is otherwise infringing, may be a “fair use”:
– Is the new use one that the law treats as in the public interest, such as
news reporting, scholarship
– Four factor test to determine fair use
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Battle is Joined
 Oracle purchased Sun in 2010, sued Google in US District Court
in California for patent and copyright infringement of Java
 Sued over 37 API packages that Oracle argues make up the
most important packages in Java
 Argued that Google copied the structure, sequence and
organization (SSO) of the API packages
 Also argues that Google copied 7000 lines of code that make up
the package declarations (Google now argues this was waived)
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The First Skirmish – Federal District Court
 Case was tried to a jury on patent infringement
– Jury found no patent infringement by Google
 On copyright claims, jury was told to assume the APIs were
copyrightable, and to decide infringement and fair use
 Jury found that Google did infringe, but hung on fair use issue
 Judge Alsup then decided the issue of whether the APIs were
copyrightable in the first instance
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The First Skirmish – Google’s Arguments
 Parties agreed that Google had not literally copied the
implementing code for the entire 37 packages
 Google argued that the API declaring code (which was copied)
was functional and non-copyrightable
 Google also argued that the SSO was unprotectable because it
was functional and a mere “method of operation”
– Cited Lotus v. Borland case where Borland copied command hierarchy of
Lotus 1-2-3 to allow users to use Lotus macros in Quattro Pro
– Court in Lotus said command structure was not protectable
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The First Skirmish – Google’s Arguments
 Google relied heavily on two Ninth Circuit cases for principle
that aspects of a computer program that address
interoperability are not protectable
 Sega v. Accolade: Reverse engineering case in which Accolade
made intermediate copies of Sega’s software in order to
understand how Sega’s game console interfaced with Sega’s
own game cartridges. In fair use analysis, Court said “interface
procedures for compatibility were functional aspects not
copyrightable under Section 102(b)”
 Sony Entertainment v. Connectix: Another reverse-engineering
case in game console context; also discusses protectability of
functional aspects in fair use context
12/5/2013
dwt.com
District Court Ruling on Copyrightability of APIs
 Judge Alsup held that APIs were not copyrightable
 This mooted the jury’s decision on infringement, and its failure
to reach a decision on fair use
 Controlling principles cited by Judge Alsup:
– Merger
– Names and short phrases not protectable
– Functional elements essential for interoperability not protectable
– No protection for “sweat of the brow” -- should not use
“copyrightability merely to reward an investment made in a body of
intellectual property.”
12/5/2013
dwt.com
District Court Ruling on Copyrightability of APIs
 Key Quotes from Judge Alsup:
– “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 these
particular lines of code. That is, since there is only one way to declare a
given method functionality, everyone using that function must write
that specific line of code in the same way.” (Discussing merger)
– “In order to declare a particular functionality, the [Java] language
demands that the method declaration take a particular form.”
(Discussing words and short phrases)
– Sega case “expressly held that interface procedures for compatibility
were functional aspects not copyrightable under [Section 102(b)]”
12/5/2013
dwt.com
District Court Ruling on Copyrightability of APIs
 Decision evidences patent-centric view of software protection
 Also tends to favor developers of apps and software that
interoperate with established platforms over the creators of
the original platforms
– At the very least, decision decidedly in favor of open-source
 Although nominally limited to the specific Java APIs, it is hard
to imagine any APIs protected by copyright under his analysis
 Indeed, decision can be read as creating significant doubt
regarding the copyrightability of software generally, and
certainly regarding copyrightability of the SSO of software
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Second Skirmish – The Federal Circuit
 Federal Circuit typically oversees appeals of patent cases
 Here, has jurisdiction over appeal even though the patent
claims are no longer in the case
 Appeal may give Federal Circuit an opportunity to distinguish
between copyrightable software and software patents
 Limits of patentable subject matter have been front-and-center
in recent years, and CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. in Federal Circuit in
May 2013 has generated even more confusion over when
software can be patented
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Oracle’s Arguments on Appeal
 Big picture arguments:
– There should be no “software exceptionalism” for APIs
• APIs should be treated the same as any software
– Decision undermines the basic copyright bargain:
• Developers rely on copyright to protect value of their extensive efforts to
bring new works to the public
• Price for those who follow and don’t have to develop from scratch is license
• Google did not like license terms so just copied the software and
piggybacked for free on Sun’s work
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Oracle’s Arguments on Appeal
 General principles for copyright protection of software:
– Copyright Act sets low bar for protection
– Software protected same as any “literary work”
• Oracle’s brief compares its software to a novel: Google copied chapter titles verbatim, then
topic sentences of each paragraph; then paraphrased rest
– Under these precedents, both “declaring code” and SSO are protectable
 Copyright protection for Java source code:
– District Court misapplied doctrines of merger and “short phrases” when examining
protectability of declaring code
 Copyright protection for SSO
– Court erred in finding all organizational and structural elements of APIs were merely
“methods of operation”
– Court incorrectly interpreted case law on “interoperability” and misapplied it to facts
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Google’s Arguments on Appeal
 Essence of argument: Judge Alsup got everything right
– Made detailed factual findings after 10-day bench trial with 24 witnesses
 Big Picture Arguments:
– APIs are different from literary works such as novels
– “However creative and useful the Java API may be, it is fundamentally a
functional, utilitarian work”, and only receives “weak” protection
 Like Oracle, Google invokes the “fundamental purpose of the
Copyright Act” to “encourage the production of original works by
protecting the expressive elements of those works while leaving the
ideas, facts, and functional concepts in the public domain for others
to build on.”
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Google’s Arguments on Appeal
 Binding Ninth Circuit precedents compel affirmance of the
judgment dismissing Oracle’s claim that SSO infringed
– Section 102(a) imposes a minimal originality requirement for
copyrightability and section 102(b) then filters out and denies
protection to functional elements
• Only the “writing” (source code) is protected; the methods (here, API
packages) are not
– Section 102(b) ensures that functional elements within a copyrightable
work are protected, if at all, only by patent law
– Sega and Sony held that section 102(b) filters out and denies copyright
protection to interfaces—functional program elements necessary for
compatibility
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Amicus (friend of the court) Briefs
 Supporting Oracle/Favoring Reversal:
– Microsoft, EMC, and NetApp
– Ralph Oman, Former Register of Copyrights
– The Software Alliance
– The Picture Archive Council of America and Graphic Artists Guild
– Computer Science Professors (3)
– Former executives of Sun Microsystems
 Supporting Google/Favoring Affirmance:
– Rackspace US, Application Developers Alliance, TMSoft and Stack Exchange
– Software Innovators, Start-Ups and Investors
– Computer Scientists
– Intellectual Property Law Professors
– Computer & Communications Industry Association
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Main Event: Oral Argument on Dec. 4, 2013
 Federal Circuit Panel Consisted of:
Circuit Judge S. Jay Plager
(Assumed Office in 1989)
Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley
(Assumed Office in 2010)
Circuit Judge Richard G. Taranto
(Assumed Office in 2013)
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Main Event: Oral Argument on Dec. 4, 2013
 Overview:
– Crowded courtroom
– Hot bench: neither attorney made much of a presentation before the
grilling began by the judges
– Joshua Rosencrantz of Orrick argued for Oracle
– Robert Van Nest of Keker & Van Nest argued for Google
– Toughest questions were asked of Google
– Judge O’Malley in particular very skeptical of several of Google’s
primary arguments
– Judge Taranto may have had more sympathy for Google than Judges
O’Malley and Plager
12/5/2013
dwt.com
The Main Event: Oral Argument on Dec. 4, 2013
 Further Overview:
– Surprisingly few questions about interoperability, BUT judges seem to
believe that it was incorrect to define the copyrightability of software
based on whether a market for interoperable products later developed
– Harshest criticism was for Google’s reliance on Sony and Sega cases
given that they were decided in fair use context
• Judge O’Malley: Those cases “just don’t say what you say they say”
– Judges troubled by how to separate out functional aspects from
expressive aspects, and whether case has to be remanded to Judge
Alsup to do so
– Judges also troubled by scope of Alsup’s ruling – how any software
could be found copyrightable
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Oral Argument: The Details
 Oracle’s Argument
– Oracle argued that 7000 lines of declaring code copied, and that waiver
argument was a sideshow (waiver argument never gained traction)
– O’Malley pressed Oracle to explain what a “method of operation” in
102(b) is, as opposed to what it is not; Rosencrantz argued that it is a
series of steps stated in an abstract way (versus concrete expression)
– Judge Plager suggested the lower court had difficulty separating
expression from function, and asked Oracle whether it was true that
most computer code performs a function; Oracle said ALL code does
• Plager: So how do we separate from expression?
• Oracle: Points to security functions and argues that Google could recreate
the security functionality, but not the actual structure of the Java code
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Oral Argument: The Details
 Taranto asked whether Oracle was saying it could copyright the
organization of the method itself
– Oracle said that methods arranged in a particular way can be protected,
but in any event the way Google infringed was to copy the code in
which the structure inhered
 Oracle urged the court to reach and decide fair use without a
remand, said underlying facts not in dispute
– Judges troubled by the possibility that there are issues of fact that must
be decided by jury before ruling made on ultimate questions
(transformativeness, substantiality of portion used, etc.)
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Oral Argument: The Details
 Google’s Argument:
– Tried to stick close to Judge Alsup’s decision, until it became clear the judges
found several aspects problematic, then pivoted a bit
• Pointed to Alsup findings that program written in Java can interoperate with
Android if using the 37 copied packages, and Sun gave away Java code for free
• Judge O’Malley countered that even where made available publicly, Java was
subject to license requirements
– Van Nest argued that if Sec. 102(b) has any meaning, must mean that “the
thing that runs the program” (APIs) is not copyrightable
– Van Nest made clear that Google is arguing that SSO of software should not
be copyrightable
• O’Malley asked how many computer programs do not have SSO; Van Nest
replied that he does not know, but all programs have to have a means to
operate them (which should not be copyrightable)
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Oral Argument: The Details
 Taranto asked whether Google’s argument relies on a “shift in time”,
or whether Google is saying the Java declaring code was
unprotectable even at the time it was created
– Google replied that even at that time, the organizational structure to
operate something cannot be protected
– Taranto asked whether the 7000 lines of code are not a “set of expressions”;
Google argued they were functional and Taranto asked whether this would
not be true of all software
 O’Malley noted that Alsup found that there were multiple ways to
create SSO that would create same function, and asked why that did
not determine copyrightability
– Van Nest argued Sega and Sony cases still found no copyrightability for
functional aspects, which led to Judge O’Malley’s criticisms of those cases
(“you are just putting a square peg in a round hole”)
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Oral Argument: The Details
 O’Malley suggested that Lotus v. Borland case is the strongest one for
Google, Google agrees and argues points of that case
 Plager pressed Google on Judge Alsup’s “names and short phrases” analysis,
saying Alsup was “confused”
– Van Nest argued that Alsup’s ruling not really based on that portion of opinion,
which is really irrelevant
 O’Malley asked why expectations of the market matters, and whether
copyright can be lost because it becomes popular?
– Google argued you look at copyrightability at the date of conception, as well as at
date of infringement
– At conception, question is whether it is just a method of operation
– At infringement, question is [interoperability]
 On fair use, Google argued (with some success) that there were disputes of
fact that were relevant and need to be decided by jury
12/5/2013
dwt.com
To The Victor Goes The Spoils? Possible Outcomes.
 District Court decision upheld in full
– Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying of the API packages,
including their structure, sequence and organization, is dismissed
– Fair use question is moot
 District Court decision reversed in its entirety
– Finds all aspects of software protectable
– Upholds jury finding that Google copied the APIs
– Federal Circuit decides Google’s use was not fair
– Remand for trial on damages
12/5/2013
dwt.com
To The Victor Goes The Spoils? Possible Outcomes.
 District Court reversed on copyrightability, but Federal
Circuit finds Google’s use was fair
– Case dismissed but precedential value on copyrightability issue shifts
 District Court reversed on copyrightability, and Federal
Circuit remands to jury on fair use
 Federal Circuit finds that some aspects of Oracle’s
software is protectable, some are not
– Finds declaring code protectable, but not SSO (because functional)
– Finds declaring code unprotectable (because of merger), finds SSO
protectable
12/5/2013
dwt.com
To The Victor Goes The Spoils? Possible Outcomes.
 Note that Google argues that if case is remanded on fair
use, infringement must be retried as well
– Did not mention this point at oral argument
 Note also that Google cross-appealed on two minor
grounds:
– District Court should not have overruled the jury’s finding that
Google did not infringe by copying 8 decompiled files
– District Court should have overruled jury’s finding that Google’s
use of RangeCheck function was infringing
• Court seemed willing to consider that this copying was essentially
irrelevant, and the Oracle might use it to taint jury
12/5/2013
dwt.com
Predictions
 Based on the lines of questions at oral argument, Federal
Circuit may:
– Reverse on copyrightability and find that the 7000 lines of declaring
code are copyrightable, and that the SSO of the APIs is copyrightable
but not the method of operation itself (Google free to replicate the
functionality; Court may also say that if there are specific lines of
declaring code absolutely necesssary for a new program to be able
interoperate with Java, those may be copied)
– Uphold jury verdict on infringement
– Remand to a new jury on fair use, possibly with instructions to district
court as to how that analysis should be conducted
12/5/2013
dwt.com