No. 2013-1021, -1022
__________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT __________________________________________________________________
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. GOOGLE INC.
Defendant-Cross Appellant.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal From The United States District Court For The Northern District Of California In Case No. 10-CV-3561, Judge William H. Alsup
__________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE EUGENE H. SPAFFORD, Ph.D., ZHI DING, Ph.D., AND LEE A. HOLLAAR, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT
D
ATED
:
F
EBRUARY
19,
2013 Jared Bobrow, Esq.
Principal Attorney
Aaron Y. Huang, Esq. W
EIL
,
G
OTSHAL
&
M
ANGES
LLP 201
Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (650) 802-3000
Counsel for Amici Curiae
E
UGENE
H.
S
PAFFORD
,
P
H
.D.,
Z
HI
D
ING
,
P
H
.D.,
AND
L
EE
A.
H
OLLAAR
,
P
H
.D.
Case: 13-1021 Document: 76 Page: 1 Filed: 02/19/2013
i
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for amici curiae, Eugene H. Spafford, Ph.D., Zhi Ding, Ph.D., and Lee A. Hollaar, Ph.D., certifies the following: 1.
The full name of every party represented by me is: E
UGENE
H.
S
PAFFORD
Z
HI
D
ING
L
EE
A.
H
OLLAAR
2.
The names of the real parties in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: N
OT
A
PPLICABLE
. 3.
All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10% or more of the stock of the party represented by me are: N
OT
A
PPLICABLE
. 4.
The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the parties now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this Court are: Jared Bobrow Aaron Y. Huang WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Dated: February 19, 2013 By:
/s/ Jared Bobrow
Jared Bobrow WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Case: 13-1021 Document: 76 Page: 2 Filed: 02/19/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ii
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ........................................................................ i
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST ...................................................................... 1
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................... 6
III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 8
A.
Technology Background ............................................................... 8
1.
APIs and software APIs ...................................................... 8
2.
Java APIs .......................................................................... 10
B.
An API is a Work of Creative Expression. ................................. 12
1.
An API can be expressed in innumerable different ways. ................................................................................. 12
2.
The expression of an API is not dictated by its function. ............................................................................ 17
C.
Android Is Not Interoperable With Java. .................................... 20
D.
Copyright Protection Incentivizes Reliable and Secure APIs. ............................................................................................ 22
IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 24
Case: 13-1021 Document: 76 Page: 3 Filed: 02/19/2013