DOCSLIB.ORG

Computer & Communications Industry Associ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Computer & Communications Industry Associ No. 18-956 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— GOOGLE LLC, Petitioner, v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Respondent. ———— On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ———— BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION AND INTERNET ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ———— MATT SCHRUERS JONATHAN BAND ALI STERNBURG Counsel of Record COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS JONATHAN BAND PLLC INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 21 Dupont Circle NW 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20001 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 296-5675 JONATHAN BERROYA [email protected] INTERNET ASSOCIATION 660 N. Capitol Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Counsel for Amici Curiae January 13, 2020 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ........................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 7 I. The Federal Circuit’s Decisions Threaten to Undermine the Pro-Interoperability Consensus in U.S. Copyright Law ........... 7 A. The Second Circuit in Altai Rejected the Third Circuit’s Erroneous Franklin and Whelan Dicta Suggesting That Software Interfaces Fall Within the Scope of Copyright Protection ............. 7 B. The Ninth Circuit in Sega Held That the Copying Incidental to Software Reverse Engineering Does Not Infringe Copyright .............................................. 14 1. The Courts Permitted Software Reverse Engineering for the Purpose of Identifying Software Interfaces ........................................ 14 2. The Reverse Engineering Decisions Underscored the Unprotectability of Software Interfaces .................... 18 C. Altai and Sega Brought Two Decades of Stability, Competition and Innova- tion ....................................................... 19 (i) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page 1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Further Reinforced the Con- sensus that Software Interfaces Do Not Receive Copyright Protection ... 21 2. Free Trade Agreements Reflect the Consensus that Software Interfaces Are Outside the Scope of Copyright Protection .................. 23 D. The Federal Circuit’s Decisions Shatter the Pro-Interoperability Consensus ............................................ 24 II. Copyright Laws Around the World Pro- mote Competition in the Technology Industries .................................................. 25 A. European Union Law Mirrors the U.S. Pro-Interoperability Approach .... 25 B. Copyright Policies Around the Pacific and Across the World Align with U.S. and European Pro-Interoperability Law ....................................................... 27 III. Affirmance of the Decisions Below Will Greatly Disrupt the Global Technology Industries .................................................. 29 CONCLUSION .................................................... 31 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Alcatel U.S.A., Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999) ..................... 17-18 Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983) ...................passim Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ..................... 13 Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................... 11, 17 Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) ................... 13, 17 Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989) ................................... 15 Bowers v. Baystate Tech., Inc., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................. 13 Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Tech., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................. 13 Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) ...................... passim DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 898 F. Supp. 1183 (N.D. Tex. 1995), aff’d, 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996) ............. 17 DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc’ns, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 359 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and vacated in part, 170 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .... 17 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs., Inc. v. Grace Consulting, Inc., 307 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2002) ...................... 12 DVD Copy Control Assoc. v. Bunner, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) .......................................................... 13 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) ................................... 2 Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir. 1994) ..................... 13 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) ............................... 3, 11, 24 Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993) ....................... 11, 13 Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974) ................................... 14 Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) ..................... 12, 13 Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995) ....................... 12 Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996) ................................... 12, 13 Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997) ................. 12, 19 Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....... 4, 24, 25, 27 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ....... 6 Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google LLC, 886 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................. 4 Plains Cotton Co-op Ass’n v. Goodpasture Computer Serv., Inc., 807 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 821 (1987) ................................... 10-11 ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) ..................... 13 Pulse Commc’ns, Inc. v. DSC Commc’ns Corp., 528 U.S. 923 (1999) ................................... 13 Sega Enters., Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) ..................passim Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) ............... 13, 17, 19 Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990) ................................... 19 Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975) ................................... 19 Unix Sys. Lab., Inc. v. Berkeley Software, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 790 (D.N.J. 1993) ........ 13 Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988) ..................... 18 Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986) ...................passim vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued STATUTES Page(s) 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................... 11, 18, 19 17 U.S.C. § 117 ............................................. 18 17 U.S.C. § 1201 ........................................... 21, 23 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f) .................................... 4, 22, 25 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f)(3) ................................... 22 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f)(4) ................................... 22 18 U.S.C. § 1839(b)(6)................................... 15 INTERNATIONAL CASES Delrina Corp. v. Triolet Systems, Inc., 9 B.L.R.2d 140 (Ont. Ct. of Justice 1993) 28 John Richardson Computers Ltd. v. Flanders and Chemtec Ltd., 1993 FSR 497 ............................................ 28 Matrox Elec. Sys., Ltd. v. Gaudreau, [1993] R.J.Q. 2449 (C.S. Montreal) .......... 28 SAS Institute, Inc v. World Programming Ltd [2012] 3 CMLR 4 ................................ 27 TREATIES, INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS, AND DIRECTIVES Council of Ministers Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 1991 O.J. (L 122) ....passim U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, art. 20.66.4(a) (Dec. 10, 2019) ......................... 24 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued OTHER AUTHORITIES Page(s) Am. Comm. for Interoperable Sys., Statement of Principles (1991), available at Computer & Commc’ns Indus. Ass’n, Interoperability Resources, https://www. ccianet.org/interop .................................... 13 Computer & Commc’ns Indus. Ass’n, Interoperability Resources, https://www. ccianet.org/interop ..................................... 13, 17 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 11 August 1999, 8479 (Daryl Williams, Attorney- General) (Austl.) ....................................... 28 Denise Yu, Sec’y of Trade and Indus., Speech by the Secretary of Trade and Industry on Resumption of Second Reading Debate (June 24, 1997) .............. 28 Donald S. Chisum et al., LaST Frontier Conference Report on Copyright Protec- tion of Computer Software, 30 Jurimetrics J. 15 (1989) ................................................ 11 Jonathan Band, The Global API Copyright Conflict, 31 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 615 (2018) ............................................. 24, 26, 28, 29 Jonathan Band & Masanobu Katoh, Interfaces on Trial: Intellectual Property and Interoperability in the Global Software Industry (1995), available at http://www.policybandwidth.com/interfa ces-2-0 .......................................................passim viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Jonathan Band & Masanobu Katoh, Interfaces on Trial 2.0 (2011), available at http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/interfaces- trial-20 ....................................................... passim Pamela Samuelson, The Past, Present, and Future of Software Copyright Interop- erability Rules in the European Union
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Game's the Thing: Properties, Priorities and Perceptions in the Video Games Industries
    The game's the thing: properties, priorities and perceptions in the video games industries Mac Sithigh, D. (2017). The game's the thing: properties, priorities and perceptions in the video games industries. In M. Richardson, & S. Ricketson (Eds.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment (pp. 344-366). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710798 Published in: Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment Document Version: Peer reviewed version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights Copyright 2017, the Author. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:25. Sep. 2021 The Game’s the Thing: Property, Priorities and Perceptions in the Video Games Industries Daithí Mac Síthigh* Published in Richardson and Ricketson (eds), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment (Edward Elgar 2017) I.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Software Copyright Infringement and Criminal Enforcement
    Online Software Copyright Infringement and Criminal Enforcement Submitted: May 14, 2005 Randy K. Baldwin American University Washington College of Law What are Warez and Who Trades Them? This paper will discuss infringement of software copyrights with a focus on criminal ‘warez trading‘ of copyrighted software on the Internet. Warez are infringing electronic, digital copies of copyrighted works whose copy protection measures have been removed.1 Warez are most often ‘cracked’ software programs whose digital rights management (DRM) and copy control measures have been circumvented. Once DRM controls have been disabled, warez are subsequently distributed and traded on the Internet, usually without any direct financial gain to the distributors and traders.2 Distribution of warez usually starts as small-scale deployments from password- protected file transfer protocol (FTP) servers and encrypted and/or password-protected web sites run by warez groups. Warez are then traded on the Internet among broader groups via direct peer-to-peer (P2P) connections, and encrypted emails with warez attachments. Trading and downloading of warez is coordinated via closed, invite-only Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels, Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encrypted email, Instant Messaging (IM), private chat rooms, direct connect P2P networks, and messages posted to Usenet groups under pseudonyms.3 Servers and sites hosting warez and communications means used by warez traders are designed to avoid detection and identification by law enforcement.4 File and directory names are intentionally 1 Goldman, Eric, A Road to No Warez: The No Electronic Theft Act and Criminal Copyright Infringement. 82 Or. L. Rev. 369, 370-371 (2003). [hereinafter Road to No Warez], available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=520122 (last visited May 9, 2005) (on file with author) (Defines warez and warez trading.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyleft, -Right and the Case Law on Apis on Both Sides of the Atlantic 5
    Less may be more: copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic 5 Less may be more: copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic Walter H. van Holst Senior IT-legal consultant at Mitopics, The Netherlands (with thanks to the whole of the FTF-legal mailinglist for contributing information and cases that were essential for this article) DOI: 10.5033/ifosslr.v5i1.72 Abstract Like any relatively young area of law, copyright on software is surrounded by some legal uncertainty. Even more so in the context of copyleft open source licenses, since these licenses in some respects aim for goals that are the opposite of 'regular' software copyright law. This article provides an analysis of the reciprocal effect of the GPL- family of copyleft software licenses (the GPL, LGPL and the AGPL) from a mostly copyright perspective as well as an analysis of the extent to which the SAS/WPL case affects this family of copyleft software licenses. In this article the extent to which the GPL and AGPL reciprocity clauses have a wider effect than those of the LGPL is questioned, while both the SAS/WPL jurisprudence and the Oracle vs Google case seem to affirm the LGPL's “dynamic linking” criterium. The net result is that the GPL may not be able to be more copyleft than the LGPL. Keywords Law; information technology; Free and Open Source Software; case law; copyleft, copyright; reciprocity effect; exhaustion; derivation; compilation International Free and Open Source Software Law Review Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Accolade-Catalog2
    Introduction • • Jack Nicklaus Golf & Course • Design: Signature Edition'" • AI Michaels Announces ~ • HardBall III'" • T • Road & Track®Presents Grand Prix Unlimited'" • • Science Fiction Role-Playing: • Star Control II'" • ® SNOOPY's Game Club'" • • Accolade in Motion • • Sports: Mike Ditka Ultimate • Footbalr & Winter Challenge • • Driving: A Test Drive III: The Passion'" 1 L 0 Role Playing: Elvira®Mistress (J • of the Dark'" & Elvira II the ~ • Jaws of Cerberus'" Graphic Adventure: Les Manley in: Lost in LA'" Science Fiction: Hoverforce'" & Star Contror o Ordering Information Macintosh Titles All Time Favorites Product Availability s 1 Accolade In Motion •••••• From the moment hen it comes to entertainment software, you'll find a game IS Accolade in motion creating the finest and most conceived imaginative computer games on the market today. through design, Whether your favorite genre is sports, driving, role-playing, science fiction or graphic adventure, Accolade has a great ... production, game for you. and meticulous From the soaring drives of Jack Nicklaus to the towering home testing, we runs of HardBall 111- from the blazingly fast Formula One work hard to cars of Grand Prix Unlimited to the white-hot space combat of Star Control 11- Accolade pours on the excitement. produce the We pour out our hearts, too, with children's games like our very finest warm and funny SNOOPY's Game Club. games Accolade is proud that so many of the titles in our constantly possible. growing library have won critical acclaim for their realistic simulations, graphic excellence and absorbing gameplay. Yet it is our minds in motion - the creativity and dedication of our Accolade staff - that is our greatest pride.
    [Show full text]
  • Case History
    Page 1 of 15 Case History: Yinjie Soon STS 145, Winter 2002 Page 2 of 15 Yinjie Soon STS145: History of Computer Game Design Final Paper 12 February 2002 Case History Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters In July 1990, the two partners who formed the software company Toys for Bob released their first game, Star Control, under game publisher Accolade for the personal computer system. These two men – Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford – were big fans of science fiction, and in Reiche’s case, fantasy role playing games (especially Dungeons and Dragons). Unsurprisingly, the game had a strong science fiction theme and heavy doses of traditional role-playing elements, wherein the player controlled one of two sides in an effort to either take over the universe as the marauding conquerors of the Ur-Quan Hierarchy, or save the universe as the brave defenders of the Alliance of Free Stars. Star Control effectively interleaved elements of strategy and action; the player tried to outwit the opposing forces in various turn-based inter-planetary strategic scenarios, and subsequently engaged enemy ships in real-time “space melee” one-on-one spaceship dogfights, similar in style to Spacewar, the earliest of video games (Derrenbacker). Many of the sequel’s most interesting elements, such as the unique characteristics of each race’s ships and behaviors, were established in this game and would carry on to Star Control 2. Figures 1a and 1b show some scenes from Star Control, illustrating how advanced some of the graphics from the game were for the time (figure 1a is also an early manifestation of the creators’ sense of humor – the ship shown in the middle of the picture is the flagship of an all-female race of humanoids; the explanation behind the visual is left to the reader’s imagination.).
    [Show full text]
  • Paolo Guarda Faculty of Law – University of Trento 1 Image Courtesy of Jscreationzs at Freedigitalphotos.Net
    University of Trento Crash Course Copyright software protection: proprietary vs. open source licenses May 8, 2018 Paolo Guarda Faculty of Law – University of Trento 1 Image courtesy of jscreationzs at FreeDigitalPhotos.net CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 2 Overview of intellectual property Legal right What for? How? Application and Patents New inventions examination Original creative or artistic Copyright Exists automatically forms Distinctive identification of Use and/or Trade marks products or services registration Registered designs External appearance Registration* Valuable information not known Reasonable efforts to Trade secrets to the public keep secret From EPO, Patent teaching kit CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 3 Some IP found in a mobile Trade marks: • Made by "Nokia" phone • Product "N95" • Software "Symbian", "Java" Patents: • Data-processing methods • Semiconductor circuits © Nokia • Chemical compounds • … Trade secrets: ? Copyrights: • Software code Designs (some of them registered): • Instruction manual • Form of overall phone • Ringtone • Arrangement of buttons in oval shape • … • Three-dimensional wave form of buttons • … From EPO, Patent teaching kit CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 4 IPRs Rationale § The Statute of Anne (1710): “An act for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors or purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned” § U.S. CONST. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8 “The Congress shall have Power . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guard 5 a_18 Copyright CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 6 Psychological pressure CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 7 CC_CopyrightSoftware_Guarda_18 8 A recent law § Unlike the property on material things (which dates back to the dawn of time, which means the earliest forms of human legal organization).
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Conceptual Model for an E-Government Interoperability Framework for South Africa
    Towards a Conceptual Model for an e-Government Interoperability Framework for South Africa Paula Kotzé1,2 and Ronell Alberts1 1CSIR Meraka Institute, Pretoria, South Africa 2Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Keywords: e-Government, e-GIF, Interoperability. Abstract: In September 2016, the South African Government published a White Paper on the National Integrated ICT Policy highlighting some principles for e-Government and the development of a detailed integrated national e-Government strategy and roadmap. This paper focuses on one of the elements of such a strategy, namely the delivery infrastructure principles identified, and addresses the identified need for centralised coordination to ensure interoperability. The paper proposes a baseline conceptual model for an e- Government interoperability framework (e-GIF) for South Africa. The development of the model considered best practices and lessons learnt from previous national and international attempts to design and develop national and regional e-GIFs, with cognisance of the South African legislation and technical, social and political environments. The conceptual model is an enterprise model on an abstraction level suitable for strategic planning. 1 INTRODUCTION (Lallana, 2008: p.1) and is becoming an increasingly crucial issue, also for developing countries (United Implementing a citizen-centric approach, digitising Nations Development Programme, 2007). Many processes and making organisational changes to governments have finalised the design of national e- delivering government services are widely posited as Government strategies and are implementing priority a way to enhance services, save money and improve programmes. However, many of these interventions citizens’ quality of life (Corydon et al., 2016). The have not led to more effective public e-services, term electronic government (e-Government) is simply because they have ended up reinforcing the commonly used to represent the use of digital tools old barriers that made public access cumbersome.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAGEN V3.2 EULA and Readme
    Software Copyright Notice Software: DRAGEN v3.2 © Illumina, Inc. 2018 This Software is licensed for use under an End User Software License Agreement: ILLUMINA END-USER SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY. THIS IS A LICENSE AGREEMENT THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT BEFORE INSTALLING AND USING ILLUMINA, INC. SOFTWARE. CAREFULLY READ ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE DOWNLOADING AND/OR INSTALLATION OF THIS SOFTWARE. YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DOWNLOAD AND/OR INSTALL THIS SOFTWARE UNTIL YOU HAVE AGREED TO BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT. BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, OR OTHERWISE ACCESING OR USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT. YOU ALSO REPRESENT AND WARRANT THAT YOU ARE DULY AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF YOUR EMPLOYER. This End User License Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between Illumina, Inc., a Delaware corporation, having offices at 5200 Illumina Way, San Diego, CA 92122 (“Illumina”) and you as the end-user of the Software (hereinafter, “Licensee” or “you”). All computer programs identified above, software, firmware, and associated media, printed materials and online and electronic documentation, including any updates or upgrades thereof (collectively, “Software”) provided to Licensee are for use solely by Licensee and the provisions herein shall apply with respect to such Software. By using the Software, you indicate your acceptance of these terms and conditions, at which point this Agreement will become a legally binding agreement between you and Illumina.
    [Show full text]
  • Interoperability and Patient Access for Medicare Advantage Organization and Medicaid
    Notice: This HHS-approved document has been submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication and has not yet been placed on public display or published in the Federal Register. The document may vary slightly from the published document if minor editorial changes have been made during the OFR review process. The document published in the Federal Register is the official HHS-approved document. [Billing Code: 4120-01-P] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 406, 407, 422, 423, 431, 438, 457, 482, and 485 Office of the Secretary 45 CFR Part 156 [CMS-9115-P] RIN 0938-AT79 Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Interoperability and Patient Access for Medicare Advantage Organization and Medicaid Managed Care Plans, State Medicaid Agencies, CHIP Agencies and CHIP Managed Care Entities, Issuers of Qualified Health Plans in the Federally-facilitated Exchanges and Health Care Providers AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule is intended to move the health care ecosystem in the direction of interoperability, and to signal our commitment to the vision set out in the 21st Century Cures Act and Executive Order 13813 to improve access to, and the quality of, information that Americans need to make informed health care decisions, including data about health care prices CMS-9115-P 2 and outcomes, while minimizing reporting burdens on affected plans, health care providers, or payers. DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Sega Enterprises LTD. V. Accolade, Inc.: What's So Fair About Reverse Engineering?
    Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Volume 14 Number 3 Article 3 3-1-1994 Sega Enterprises LTD. v. Accolade, Inc.: What's so Fair about Reverse Engineering? David C. MacCulloch Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David C. MacCulloch, Sega Enterprises LTD. v. Accolade, Inc.: What's so Fair about Reverse Engineering?, 14 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 465 (1994). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr/vol14/iss3/3 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD. v. ACCOLADE, INC.: WHAT'S SO FAIR ABOUT REVERSE ENGINEERING? I. INTRODUCTION You are the president of a major corporation that develops and distributes computer video game cartridges and the consoles on which the games can be played. Your company has maintained a majority of the market share by remaining at the forefront of the game cartridges field. Your company's ability to be the first to incorporate all the latest enhance- ments is due to the efforts of one man-your chief designer of game concepts. If he were to leave, your company's position as number one in the industry would be jeopardized. One day, your chief designer demands that if he is not made an executive vice-president and equity shareholder in the company he will resign and take with him a new concept he has been privately developing at home that will take video game technology to the next level.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Reverse Engineering and Copyright: Past, Present and Future, 31 J
    UIC Law Review Volume 31 Issue 1 Article 1 Fall 1997 Legal Aspects - Software Reverse Engineering and Copyright: Past, Present and Future, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1997) Brian C. Behrens Reuven R. Levary Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Computer Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian C. Behrens & Reuven R. Levary, Legal Aspects - Software Reverse Engineering and Copyright: Past, Present and Future, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1997) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol31/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES LEGAL ASPECTS - SOFTWARE REVERSE ENGINEERING AND COPYRIGHT: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE BRIAN C. BEHRENS*& REUVEN R. LEVARY** With technological advances in the field of computers, the le- gal world is discovering that the laws that apply to this field must advance as well. Copyright laws that currently govern the devel- opment of computer software are still quite ambiguous, with diffi- culties in their application and debates over the scope of the law. In light of conflicting case law, it is troublesome for an attorney to give clients advice on whether certain software development tech- niques violate copyright laws or carry other legal consequences. What is certain is that the courts are deciding more and more computer software cases.' As a result, future law regarding copy- right infringement in this area is still subject to change.
    [Show full text]
  • Interoperability and the Solaris™ 10 Operating System
    Interoperability and the Solaris™ 10 Operating System Interoperability from the Desktop to the Data Center Across a Range of Systems, Software, and Technologies < Investment protection in heterogeneous environments Today, businesses rely on complex, geographically dispersed computing infrastructures that often consist of hundreds of heterogeneous hardware and software platforms from a wide variety of vendors. If these environments are to remain manageable, organizations must be able to rely on interoperable products that work well together. At the same time, as organiza- tions evolve their computing environments with an eye toward improving cost-effectiveness and total cost of ownership (TCO), heavy investments in servers, operating systems, and applications must be protected, and dependence on specific hardware or software vendors must be avoided. The Solaris™ 10 Operating System meets these challenges through a number of different ways, from interoperability with both Linux and Microsoft Windows-based systems through support for a wide range of open standards and open source applications. Interoperability with Java™ technology Windows on a Solaris system by installing a Highlights The Java™ technology revolution has changed SunPCi™ card. The Solaris OS also supports An ideal platform for heteroge- how people think about interoperability by open standards and interfaces that make it neous computing, the Solaris™ no longer tying application design to a specific easier to interoperate with Microsoft Windows 10 OS: platform. Running on every major hardware systems. Authentication interoperability can • Supports open standards such platform and supported by virtually every be achieved through the Kerberos protocol as UDDI, SOAP, WSDL, and XML software vendor, Java technology enables using the Sun Enterprise Authentication • Provides source and binary business applications to be developed and Mechanism™ software built right into the compatibility for Linux applica- operated independent of operating systems.
    [Show full text]