Today, the US Supreme Court granted Google's petition to review its copyright case with Oracle involving Google’s use of Oracle's application program interface (API).
Google's petition states two issues: (1) whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
See SCOTUS blog for details.
Google used 37 API packages and 7,000 lines of code to make it easier for Java programmers to write applications for the Android operating system. Given Google's resources, maybe not the best decision given this protracted legal battle.
Many amicus briefs supporting Oracle's APIs are not copyrightable and/or Google is making fair use. On the other hand, the Federal government recommended the Supreme Court deny Google’s petition. Finally, the Federal Circuit held the APIs are copyrightable and Google use is not fair use, but the Supreme Court has a track record of not affirming the Federal Circuit. Some commentators believe this case may be heard in early 2020.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label fair use. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fair use. Show all posts
Friday, November 15, 2019
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Supreme Court - Google Files Petition for Certiorari on Copyrightability and Fair Use of APIs
The Oracle v. Google API copyright dispute continues:
Note Oracle sued Google for alleged copyright and patent infringement in 2010.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Note Oracle sued Google for alleged copyright and patent infringement in 2010.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Washington Post - Google Beats Oracle on Copyright, Defeating $9 Billion Claim
Today, Washington Post reports Google Beats Oracle on Copyright, Defeating $9 Billion Claim based on a jury verdict that Google made only fair use of Oracle's APIs in the Android operating system.
Congress states four factors determine if the fair use defense exists. The jury must consider: (1) the purpose and character of the accused use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount or substantiality of the part used in relation to the copyright work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the accused use on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.
The Supreme Court has stated elsewhere that factor (4) is "undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use." Thus, a jury verdict for fair use which appears to impact the potential market for Java in mobile devices is a bit surprising. Perhaps the $9B damages Oracle sought worked against the jury's sensibilities.
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Congress states four factors determine if the fair use defense exists. The jury must consider: (1) the purpose and character of the accused use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount or substantiality of the part used in relation to the copyright work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the accused use on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.
The Supreme Court has stated elsewhere that factor (4) is "undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use." Thus, a jury verdict for fair use which appears to impact the potential market for Java in mobile devices is a bit surprising. Perhaps the $9B damages Oracle sought worked against the jury's sensibilities.
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 29, 2015
FOSS Patents - US Supreme Court Denies Google's Petition on Android's Use of Oracle's Java API
I suggest reading Oracle v. Google Android-Java copyright case goes back to San Fran: Supreme Court denies Google petition at FOSS Patents. Google's petition for certiorari (Supreme Court review) has failed despite substantial efforts and numerous amici briefs arguing Oracle's Java API are a method of operation rather than copyrightable subject matter. The case next considers if Google's use of the APIs in Android is nonetheless a "fair use." FOSS Patents expects Google will lose.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Fortune - Let Oracle Own APIs, Justice Dept Tells Top Court in Surprise Filing
I suggest reading the Fortune article: Let Oracle Own APIs, Justice Dept Tells Top Court in Surprise Filing and DOJ's filing.
The DOJ filing which is worth reading encourages the US Supreme Court to deny Google's petition to hear its arguments to deny copyright protection to Oracle's Java related application programming interfaces (APIs).
It does a good job of explaining the scope of copyright protection for software:
Petitioner (Google) contends, however, that even if the declaring code is an “original work[] of authorship” under Section 102(a), it is not entitled to copyright protection because it constitutes a “method of operation” or “system” within the meaning of Section 102(b). That argument is incorrect. . . . Section 102(b) is not a limitation on what kinds of expressive works may be protected by a copyright. Rather, it is a limitation on how broadly the copyright extends.
DOJ stated, among other things, in the filing: "The Android platform uses the Java programming language, but [Google] purposely designed Android not to be compatible with the Java platform or interoperable with Java programs."
Google's response: "We still look forward to defending the concepts of interoperability that have traditionally contributed to innovation in the software industry."
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The DOJ filing which is worth reading encourages the US Supreme Court to deny Google's petition to hear its arguments to deny copyright protection to Oracle's Java related application programming interfaces (APIs).
It does a good job of explaining the scope of copyright protection for software:
Petitioner (Google) contends, however, that even if the declaring code is an “original work[] of authorship” under Section 102(a), it is not entitled to copyright protection because it constitutes a “method of operation” or “system” within the meaning of Section 102(b). That argument is incorrect. . . . Section 102(b) is not a limitation on what kinds of expressive works may be protected by a copyright. Rather, it is a limitation on how broadly the copyright extends.
DOJ stated, among other things, in the filing: "The Android platform uses the Java programming language, but [Google] purposely designed Android not to be compatible with the Java platform or interoperable with Java programs."
Google's response: "We still look forward to defending the concepts of interoperability that have traditionally contributed to innovation in the software industry."
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Use of Copyrighted Articles in Prosecuting Patent Applications is Fair Use
In American Institute of Physics v. Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, the District Court of Minnesota recommended granting of summary judgment that use of copyrighted articles to prosecute patent applications is a fair use. Note fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement. Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act, states four factors to consider if fair use exists: (1) the purpose of the accused use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the proportion of the whole work used; and (4) the effect of the use on the potential market for the copyrighted work.
The court stated the law firm’s purpose in copying the articles was to meet legal requirements of disclosing non-patent prior art to the USPTO. This contrasts with the copyright owner's primary purpose to publish research and discoveries to the scientific community. Although the whole work was used, the court found no evidence the use impacted the current or potential market of the copyrighted works. The court's opinion appears well reasoned, but the publisher may have too much at stake to not appeal. Because we don't know if this matter is resolved, patent attorneys may want to limit printing and copying of non-patent literature.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The court stated the law firm’s purpose in copying the articles was to meet legal requirements of disclosing non-patent prior art to the USPTO. This contrasts with the copyright owner's primary purpose to publish research and discoveries to the scientific community. Although the whole work was used, the court found no evidence the use impacted the current or potential market of the copyrighted works. The court's opinion appears well reasoned, but the publisher may have too much at stake to not appeal. Because we don't know if this matter is resolved, patent attorneys may want to limit printing and copying of non-patent literature.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)