Oracle v. Google and Interoperability - Berkeley Law...Oracle#and#CAFC#say#no—# •...

Oracle v. Google and Interoperability

Jonathan Band policybandwidth


“A page of history is worth a volume of logic.” —Chief Jus;ce Roberts, eBay v. MercExchange

“All history is personal.” —James Krohe, Jr.


ACIS: American CommiDee for Interoperable Systems ECIS: European CommiDee for Interoperable Systems CAIS: Canadian Associa;on for Interoperable Systems SISA: Supporters of Interoperable Systems in Australia


Is this case about interoperability?

Oracle and CAFC say no— •  Google inten;onally did not want Android to be interoperable with Java, and thus did not copy the complete Java command structure.

•  Google sought to appeal to Java developers, not achieve interoperability with Java apps, i.e., achieve human interoperability, not soKware operability.



District Court says— •  “Interoperability sheds further light on the character of the command structure as a system or method of opera;on.”

•  “Google replicated what was necessary to achieve a degree of interoperability—but no more, taking care… to provide its own implementa;ons.”



•  District Court noted that Oracle in essence was arguing that Google’s interoperability argument would have been stronger if Google copied more—the structure of all 166 Java API packages—rather than just 37.



•  CAFC does not rule that District Court decision about “a degree of interoperability” was clearly erroneous; just states that no app wriDen in Java could run on Android, so case not about interoperability.



•  Nonetheless, CAFC cited the statement in the Third Circuit decision in Apple v. Franklin that compa;bility is:

“a commercial and compe;;ve objec;ve which does not enter into the somewhat metaphysical issue of whether par;cular ideas and expressions have merged.”


•  On the basis of this statement, the CAFC held that the fact that program elements were necessary for interoperability had no impact in the determina;on of their protectability.

•  Instead, interoperability was relevant to assessing the applicability of the fair use defense.


•  If case is not about interoperability, then these statements about interoperability and protectability are mere dicta.

•  Nonetheless, dicta can be harmful, so deserves a response.


Sega v. Accolade

•  The Ninth Circuit found that Accolade reverse engineered “Sega’s soKware solely to discover the func;onal requirements for compa;bility with the Genesis console—aspects of Sega’s programs that are not protected by copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).”


Sega v. Accolade

•  The Ninth Circuit explained that if reverse engineering were not permiDed, "the owner of the copyright gains a de facto monopoly over the func;onal aspects of his work—aspects that were expressly denied copyright protec;on by Congress. 17 U.S.C. §102(b)."


Sega v. Accolade

•  CAFC required to apply 9th Circuit law. •  CAFC says interoperability is relevant to fair use because Sega was a fair use case.

•  But CAFC overlooked the fact that Sega’s fair use decision was predicated on the holding that program elements necessary for interoperability were not protected per sec;on 102(b).


•  9th Circuit follows Sega in Sony v. Connec:x •  Interoperability excep;on of DMCA (sec;on 1201(f))—adopted in 1998—premised on Sega and the unprotectability of interface informa;on


Sec;on 1201(f) •  A person "may circumvent a technological measure ... for the sole purpose of iden;fying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability."

•  Senate Judiciary CommiDee Report cites Sega and says 1201(f) is "intended to allow legi;mate soKware developers to con;nue engaging in certain ac;vi;es for the purpose of achieving interoperability...."

•  "The purpose of this sec;on is to foster compe;;on and innova;on in the computer and soKware industry."


Human Interoperability •  CAFC says Google wanted to “capitalize” on community of developers “trained and experienced in” and “accustomed to using the Java packages.”

•  What could be beDer proof that something is a system, or method of opera;on than if a person can become “trained,” “experienced,” or “accustomed” to using it in the course of developing new works?


Human Interoperability

Judge Boudin in Lotus v. Borland: "if a beDer spreadsheet comes along, it is hard to see why customers who have learned the Lotus menu and devised macros for it should remain cap;ves of Lotus because of an investment in learning made by the users and not by Lotus. Lotus has already reaped a substan;al reward for being first; assuming that the Borland program is now beDer, good reasons exist for freeing it to aDract old Lotus customers: to enable the old customers to take advantage of a new advance...."


Thank you!


[email protected]

Oracle v. Google and Interoperability - Berkeley Law...Oracle#and#CAFC#say#no—# •...

Documents

Transcript of Oracle v. Google and Interoperability - Berkeley Law...Oracle#and#CAFC#say#no—# •...