No. 14-410
In the Supreme Court of the United States
G
OOGLE
,
I
NC
.,
PETITIONER
v.
O
RACLE
A
MERICA
,
I
NC
.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
D
ONALD
B.
V
ERRILLI
,
J
R
.
Solicitor General Counsel of Record
B
ENJAMIN
C.
M
IZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
M
ALCOLM
L.
S
TEWART
Deputy Solicitor General
J
OHN
F.
B
ASH
Assistant to the Solicitor General
D
OUGLAS
N.
L
ETTER
M
ARK
R.
F
REEMAN
S
ONIA
K.
M
C
N
EIL
Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov (202) 514-2217
QUESTION
PRESENTED
The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 101
et seq.
, protects “original works of authorship,” 17 U.S.C. 102(a), including “computer program[s],” 17 U.S.C. 101. The Act specifies, however, that copyright pro-tection does not “extend to any idea, procedure, pro-cess, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” 17 U.S.C. 102(b). The question presented is as follows: Whether Section 102(b) precludes copyright pro-tection for original software code that defines and organizes a set of functions that are useful in writing computer programs.
(I)
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page Statement ......................................................................................... 1 Discussion ...................................................................................... 10 A. The court of appeals correctly held that Section 102(b) does not foreclose copyright protection for respondent’s declaring code ............................................ 11 B. This Court’s review is not warranted ............................. 19 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 23
TABLE
OF
AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Baker
v.
Selden
, 101 U.S. 99 (1880)..................... 12, 14, 16, 20
Campbell
v.
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ........................................................................................ 3
Feist Publ’ns, Inc.
v.
Rural Tel. Serv. Co.
, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) ....................................................................... 2, 9, 11
Golan
v.
Holder
, 132 S. Ct. 873 (2012) .............................. 2, 12
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
v.
Nation Enters.
, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) ............................................................... 17
Lexmark Int’l, Inc.
v.
Static Control Components, Inc.
, 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) ........................... 17, 19, 21
Lotus Dev. Corp.
v.
Borland Int’l, Inc.
, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d by an equally divided court, 516 U.S. 233 (1996) ................................................... 19, 20, 21
Sega Enters. Ltd.
v.
Accolade, Inc.
, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................ 18
Situation Mgmt. Sys.
v.
ASP Consulting LLC
, 560 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2009) ................................................... 21
Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc.
v.
Connectix Corp.
, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 871 (2000) ...... 17
Twin Peaks Prods., Inc.
v.
Publications Int’l, Inc.
, 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993) .................................................. 2 (III)