Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
8Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Oracle Brief

Oracle Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 33,769 |Likes:
Published by Arik Hesseldahl

More info:

Published by: Arik Hesseldahl on Apr 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
O
RACLE
S
A
PRIL
5,
 
2012
 
B
RIEF
R
EGARDING
C
OPYRIGHT
I
SSUES
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
CV 10-03561 WHApa-1521754
 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLPMICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)mjacobs@mofo.comKENNETH A. KUWAYTI (Bar No. 145384)kkuwayti@mofo.comMARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)mdpeters@mofo.comDANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)dmuino@mofo.com755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018Telephone: (650) 813-5600 / Facsimile: (650) 494-0792BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPDAVID BOIES (Admitted
Pro Hac Vice
)dboies@bsfllp.com333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504Telephone: (914) 749-8200 / Facsimile: (914) 749-8300STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)sholtzman@bsfllp.com1999 Harrison St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612Telephone: (510) 874-1000 / Facsimile: (510) 874-1460ORACLE CORPORATIONDORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)dorian.daley@oracle.comDEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)deborah.miller@oracle.comMATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)matthew.sarboraria@oracle.com500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065Telephone: (650) 506-5200 / Facsimile: (650) 506-7114
 Attorneys for Plaintiff 
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONORACLE AMERICA, INC.Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.Defendant.Case No. CV10-03561 WHA
ORACLE’S APRIL 5, 2012 BRIEFREGARDING COPYRIGHT ISSUES
Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th FloorJudge: Honorable William H. Alsup
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document859 Filed04/05/12 Page1 of 12
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
O
RACLE
S
A
PRIL
5,
 
2012
 
B
RIEF
R
EGARDING
C
OPYRIGHT
I
SSUES
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
CV 10-03561 WHA
1
pa-1521754
 
I.
 
GOOGLE INCORRECTLY STATES THE LAW ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OFSELECTION, ARRANGEMENT, OR STRUCTURE
The Court’s questions on selection, arrangement, and structure have uncovered theextremity of Google’s position. Google is urging the Court to adopt bright-line tests for which ithas no supporting legal authority and that are directly contrary to Ninth Circuit law.
A.
 
The Structure Of A Computer Program Does Not Itself Have To Be AComputer Program To Be Copyrightable
Google argues the structure of the Java APIs is not protectable because the structure is nota computer program:The selection, arrangement and structure of the APIs present a different situation. Atany level of abstraction above the actual implementation (i.e., the source code), theAPIs
no longer meet the statutory definition of a computer program.
 (ECF No. 852 at 5-6.) Google cites no judicial authority for its position.There is no reason to require that the selection, arrangement and structure of acopyrightable computer program itself be a computer program. The structure of a motion picturedoes not need to fit the definition of “motion pictures” (17 U.S.C. § 101) to be copyrightable.Nor does the structure of a book need to be a book to be copyrightable.
See, e.g.
,
Stewart v. Abend 
, 495 U.S. 207, 238 (1990) (movie “Rear Window” infringed book copyright by copying its“unique setting, characters, plot, and sequence of events”).In the Ninth Circuit the test for determining the copyrightability of the selection,arrangement or structure of a computer program is set forth in
 Johnson Controls
:Whether the nonliteral components of a program, including the structure, sequenceand organization and user interface, are protected depends on whether, on theparticular facts of each case, the component in question qualifies as an expression of an idea, or an idea itself.
 Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., Inc.
, 886 F.2d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 1989). Thetest does not require non-literal components of a computer program to be a program to beprotected.Google gives
 Johnson Controls
a tepid endorsement, but
 Johnson Controls
is hardlyalone. It has been settled law for more than 20 years that the non-literal components of computerprograms qualify for copyright protection.
See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai
, 982
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document859 Filed04/05/12 Page2 of 12
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
O
RACLE
S
A
PRIL
5,
 
2012
 
B
RIEF
R
EGARDING
C
OPYRIGHT
I
SSUES
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
CV 10-03561 WHA
2
pa-1521754
 F.2d 693, 702-03 (2d Cir. 1992) (“We have no reservation in joining the company of those courtsthat have already ascribed to this logic.”);
Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee
, 379 F.3d 131, 142 (5thCir. 2004) (“settled” that copyright protection extends to “a program’s nonliteral elements,including its structure, sequence, organization, user interface, screen displays, and menustructures.”). Google’s proposal, that the test should be whether the structure “divorced fromimplementing code” qualifies as a computer program, would gut that law. (ECF No. 852 at 6.)Google copied the detailed selection, arrangement, and structure of Oracle’s computerprograms, which are described in Oracle’s specifications and source code. There is no disputethat the Android specifications and libraries have this same selection, arrangement, and structure.Google conceded at the hearing that they are “the same.” (3/28 Hr’g Tr. at 49:23-50:1;
see also
ECF No. 778 at 3 (“substantially similar”).) The specifications are documents, the class librariesare source code programs. They are both protected as literary works, and they fit hand in glove.To try to escape liability under
 Johnson Controls
,
 
Google argues that APIs areindispensable (ECF No. 852 at 8), and that there is “no evidence” the APIs are creative (
id.
at 8n.7). Google is wrong. The APIs are a detailed, intricate blueprint that is the product of over adecade of development work, and the evidence will clearly show this. Indeed, one of the peoplewho worked on and “wrote the APIs for many class libraries at Sun” (Bloch Dep. 227:2-7),including several of the APIs in suit (
id.
at 24:7-16), has many times publicly given a presentationthat extols both the creativity and the design
decisions
involved in writing APIs.
See
 http://www.infoq.com/presentations/effective-api-design. The APIs at issue are far more creativethan the pieces of source code Google hired contractors to write over a period of months, whenGoogle re-implemented the Java APIs according to the design it copied. The APIs easily meetthe threshold of creativity applied by the Ninth Circuit in
 Johnson Controls
, which found that“some discretion and opportunity for creativity exist in the structure” was sufficient to uphold thedistrict court’s preliminary injunction finding. 886 F.2d at 1176. Google has already concededthat the 37 APIs meet the originality standard of 
Feist 
, so “[t]he jury therefore need not be askedto address whether the APIs are original.”
 
(ECF No. 823 at 9.) Google cannot retract itsadmission now.
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document859 Filed04/05/12 Page3 of 12

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->