United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 copyrights andpatents. sued defendantGoogleand accuseditsAndroidpl renamed OracleAmerica, Inc.Shortlythereafter, in thepopularprogramming language knownasJava,alanguageusedinAndroid.Sunwas In 2010,OracleCorporationacquiredSunMicrosys protected bycopyright. of thestructure,sequenceandorganizationJavaapplicationprogramming interfaceare simultaneously tothejudge,namely theextenttowhich,ifatall,certainreplicatedelements This orderincludesthefindingsoffactand GOOGLE INC., v. ORACLE AMERICA,INC., Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page1of41 In 2007,GoogleInc.,announceditsAndroidsoftware platform formobile devices. This actionwasthefirstofso-called“smartphone war”casestriedtoajury. Defendant. Plaintiff, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT / PROCEDURAL HISTORY INTRODUCTION conclusions oflawonacentralquestiontried OracleAmerica (hereinafter simply “Oracle”) atform asinfringing Oracle’sJava-related tems, Inc.,andthusacquired Sun’sinterest PROGRAMMING INTERFACE JAVA APPLICATION ELEMENTS OFTHE OF CERTAINREPLICATED ORDER RECOPYRIGHTABILITY No. C10-03561WHA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 was for grantedthatthestructure,sequenceandorganizationof37APIpackagesasawhole and organizationoftheoverallcodefor37APIpackages. packages. Oracle’scentralclaim, rather,wasthatGooglehadreplicatedthestructure,sequence copied thesoftwarebuthadinsteadcome upwithitsownimplementations ofthe37API whether anycopyingwasdeminimis. Significantly,allagreedthatGooglehad not literally and Google’sequitabledefensesthattheju and verdicts. infringement. Thethirdphasewouldhavedealtwithdamages butwasobviatedbystipulation and copyrightinfringement aswellequita the issuesiftrialwasconductedinphases.Thefirstphasecoveredcopyrightability replicated istheonlyissueaddressedbythisorder. Oracle’s copyrightclaim involves37packagesin development andtestingkits,applicationprogramming interfaces,also knownasAPIs. follow-on questionofwhether theusewasprotectedbyfairuse.Asto documentation for code forthe37JavaAPI packages,thejuryfoundthatGoogleinfringed but deadlockedonthe on copyrightability,infringement, fair use,andtheequitabledefenses.Astocompilable openings, closingsormotion practice).Inphaseone,asstated,thepartiespresentedevidence retrial. Counselweresoinformed butnotthejury. of appealswouldhaveawiderrangealternatives withouthavingtoworryaboutanexpensive in thisregard,thecourtofappealsmight simply reinstatethejuryverdict. In thisway,thecourt the structure,sequenceandorganizationinquestionwasnotprotectablebutlaterreversed instruction wassothatifthejudgeultimately ruled,afterhearingthephaseoneevidence,that Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page2of41 copyrightable.This,however,wasnotafinaldefinitivelegalruling.Onereasonforthis For theirtaskofdetermining infringement and fairuse,thejurywastolditshouldtake For thefirstphase,itwasagreedthatjudgewoulddecideissuesofcopyrightability Due tocomplexity, theCourtdecidedthatjury(andjudge)wouldbestunderstand Both JavaandAndroidarecomplex platforms. Bothinclude“virtualmachines,” Each sidewasgivenseventeenhoursof“airtime” forphaseone evidence(notcounting ble defenses.Thesecondphasecoveredpatent ry woulddecideinfringement, fairuse,and 2 the JavaAPI.Copyrightabilityofelements United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 code. Thesefileswerenotproven to computer filesbydecompiling thebytecodefrom eightJava infringement ofeightdecompiled computer files,whic the triallastedsixweeks. be noted,hadnothingtodowiththesubjectaddressedbythisorder.)Theentirejuryportionof In phasetwo,thejuryfoundnopatentinfringement acrosstheboard.(Thosepatents,itshould the juryfoundonlyonewasinfringing,namely, th the 37JavaAPIpackages,juryfoundnoinfringement. Astocertainsmall snippetsofcode, without duplicatingtheexactcommand structureusedinJava.Thiscould havebeendone protection neverextendstonames orshort phrasesasamatter oflaw. have beendifferentfrom thenames oftheirc no onecanmonopolize thatexpression.And,whiletheAndroidmethod andclassnames could When thereisonlyonewaytoexpressanideaorfunction,theneveryonefreedosoand method specifyingthe method headerlinesareidentical.UndertherulesofJava,they or specificationofanymethods usedintheJavaAPI.Itdoesnotmatter thatthedeclarationor under theCopyrightActtowritehisorherowncodecarryoutexactlysame function midnight oilinlawlibraries,fortheirassistance. their extraordinaryeffortandtothankcounsel,includingthosebehindthescenesburning copyright lawannouncedbyCongress,theSupreme CourtandtheNinthCircuit. in thefirstplace.Nolawisdirectlyonpoint.Thisorderreliesgeneralprinciplesof whether theelements replicatedbyGooglefrom theJavasystem wereprotectablebycopyright Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page3of41 1 Afterthejuryverdict,Court grantedOracle’sRule50motion forjudgment asamatter oflaw It istruethattheverysame functionality couldhavebeenoffered inAndroid So longasthespecificcodeusedtoimplement amethod isdifferent,anyonefree Counsel onbothsideshavesuppliedexcellentbriefingandtheCourtwishestorecognize This orderaddressesandresolvesthecorepremise ofthemain copyrightclaims, namely, same 1

functionality —evenwhentheimplementation isdifferent. have everbeenpartofAndroid. * SUMMARY OFRULING h wereliterallycopied.Google admitted tocopyingeight ounterparts inJavaandstillhaveworked,copyright 3 filesintosourcecodeandthen copyingthesource e ninelinesofcodecalled“rangeCheck.” must beidentical todeclarea United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 factual findings. construed tomean) thatastatement isnotafinding.A occasionally usedtoemphasize apoint.Theabsenceof order tocitetherecordforall ofthefindingsherein deemed adopted(totheextentagreedupon)even ifnot way intothisorder.Anyproposalthathasbeene navigated itsowncoursethroughtheevidenceandar class libraries(APIpackages),andtheJavavirtualmachine. “J2SE,” whichincludestheJavadevelopment kit(JDK) copyrighted. Duplicationofthecommand structure isnecessaryforinteroperability. method ofoperationunderSection 102(b)ofth of symbols, eachtocarryoutapre-assignedfunction.Thiscommand structureisasystem or creative elements butitisalsoaprecisecommand structure—autilitarianandfunctional set Each command callsintoactionapre-assignedfunction.Theoverallname tree,ofcourse,has wherein thecommands taketheform the methods yetstillduplicatethesame rangeoffunctionality. packages (evenifthesame names hadbeenused).Inthissense, thereweremany waystogroup by re-arrangingthevariousmethods underdifferentgroupingsamong thevariousclassesand a human-readable language—“sourcecode”isnotreadable bycomputer hardware. desktop computers andenterpriseservers. that runontheJavaplatform arewrittenintheJavalanguage.wasdevelopedtorunon types ofcomputer hardwarewithouthavingto virtual machine, enablessoftwaredeveloperstowriteprograms thatareabletorunondifferent most popularprogramming languagesandplatforms. Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page4of41 3 2 Ratherthanmerely veteachandeveryfindinga Forpurposesofthisorder,theterm “Java” means theJavaplatform, sometimes abbreviatedto .J 1. But thenames aremore thanjustnames —theyaresymbols inacommand structure The Javalanguage,likeCandC++,isahuman-readable language.Code writtenin Java wasdevelopedbySun,firstreleasedin1996,andhasbecome oneoftheworld’s AVA AND A NDROID STATEMENT OFFINDINGS java.package.Class.method() . xpressly agreedtobytheopposingside,however,shallbe 3 . Inthefindings,phrase“this orderfinds..”is guments, although many oftheproposalshave foundtheir ll declarativefactstatements setforthin theorderare expresslyadoptedherein.It is unnecessaryforthis thisphrase,however,doesnot mean (andshouldnot be , javaccompiler, toolsandutilities,runtime programs, rewrite them foreachdifferenttype.Programs e CopyrightActand,therefore,cannotbe 4 nd conclusionproposedbytheparties,thisorderhas 2 TheJavaplatform, throughtheuseofa United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 with thetrialrecordanduse“declaration” and“header” interchangeably. for methods “header”isthemore andclasses. While t specifications must beidentical tocarryoutthegivenfunction. out precisedesiredfunctionsand,thus,the“declar same problems andprovidingthesame functions.Everymethod andclassisspecifiedtocarry chapters inAndroidhavebeenwrittenwithimplementations different from Javabutsolvingthe 37 packages,theJavaandAndroidlibrariesareorganizedinsame basicwaybutallofthe shelf, selecttherightbook,andopenittochapterthatcoversworkyouneed.As like abookontheshelf.Eachmethod islikeahow-to-do-itchapterinbook.Gototheright to implement thesixthousand-plussubroutines(methods) andsix-hundred-plus classes. exact functionsofvirtuallyallthese37packag out atotalofoversixthousandsubroutines(methods). Googlereplicatedtheexactnames and 166 “folders”(packages),allincludingoversixhundredpre-writtenprograms (classes)tocarry all brokenintooversixthousand“methods.” ThisisveryclosetosayingtheJavaAPIhad programming interfaceorsimply API(alsoknownasclasslibraries). or retrievingthecosineof anangle.Thesetof pre-writtenprograms iscalledtheapplication pre-written programs tocarryoutvariouscommands, suchasprintingsomething onthescreen form, beforeitisthenconvertedintobinarymachine codebytheJavavirtualmachine. “execute.” IntheJavasystem, sourcecodeisfirstconvertedinto“bytecode,”anintermediate has tobeconverted,thatis,compiled, from sourcecodeintoobjectbeforeitcanrun,or is inabinarylanguage,meaning itconsistsentirelyof0sand1s.Thus,acomputer program Only “objectcode,”whichisnothuman-readable, canbeusedbycomputers. Mostobjectcode a smartphone platform. Googledecidedtousethe JavalanguagefortheAndroidplatform. mobile devices.InAugust 2005,GoogleacquiredAndroid,Inc.,aspartofaplantodevelop Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page5of41 4 Theterm “declaration”wasusedthroughout tria An APIislikealibrary.Eachpackagebookshelfintheclass In 2008,theJavaAPIhad166“packages,”brokenintomore thansixhundred“classes,” The Javalanguageitselfiscomposed ofkeywordsandothersymbols andasetof The accusedproductisAndroid,asoftwareplatform developedbyGooglefor echnically accurateterm, thisorderwillremain consistent 5 l todescribetheheaders(non-implementing code) es but,asstated,tookcaretousedifferentcode ation” (or“header”)lineofcodestatingthe 4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The copyrightissue,rather, iswhetherGooglewasandremains free toreplicatethenames, six-thousand-plus method implementations that Google’svirtualmachine isfreeofanycopyrightissues.Allagreethat the never successfullydevelopeditsownsmartphone platform usingJavatechnology. consumer usesparticular functionsonanA to smartphone manufacturers. Googlereceivesrevenuethroughadvertisement whenever a a largeshareoftheUnitedStatesmarket. Th the followingyear.Android-basedmobile devi Android andthusachieveadegreeof interoperability. names asusedinJava.Codealready writtenintheJavalanguagewould,tothisextent,runon want tofind thesame 37setsof functionalities inthenewAndroidsystem callable bythesame from thecodeforJavavirtualmachine. own virtualmachine (theso-calledDalvikvirtualmachine), builtwithsoftware codedifferent are differentfrom theJavaimplementations. In implementations —whichaccountfor97percent ofthelinescodein37APIpackages— the functionsof37APIpackagesinquestion.Significantly,allagreethatthese Specifically, Googlewroteoracquireditsownsourcecodetoimplement virtuallyall own implementations forthe functionsintheJavaAPIthatwerekeytomobile devices. Java languagetodesignitsownvirtualmachine viaitsownsoftwareandtowrite negotiated overseveralmonths, buttheywereunabletoreachadeal. an open-sourcepartoftheAndroidplatform, adaptedformobile devices.GoogleandSun co-development partnershipdealwithSununderwhichJavatechnologywouldbecome and toadapttheentireJavaplatform formobile devices.Theyalsodiscussedapossible In late2005,GooglebegandiscussingwithSunthepossibilityoftakingalicensetouse Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page6of41 All agreethatGooglewasandremains free tousetheJavalanguageitself.Allagree The Androidplatform wasreleasedin2007.ThefirstAndroidphoneswentonsale As tothe37packagesatissue,GooglebelievedJavaapplicationprogrammers would In lightofitsinabilitytoreachagreem ndroid smartphone. For itspart,SunandOracle by Googlearefreeofcopyright issues. e Androidplatform isprovidedfreeofcharge ent withSun,Googledecidedtousethe ces rapidlygrewinpopularityandnowcomprise 6 its finalform, theAndroidplatform alsohadits United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 carry precisepredefined meanings. Java syntaxalsoincludes values start atthebottom andworkitswayupward. this orderwillnowreviewsome ofthekeyru The same istrueforthe“calls,”commands thatinvokethemethods. Toseewhythisisso, functionality, everyoneusingthatfunctionmust write those particularlinesofcode.Thatis,sincethereisonlyonewaytodeclareagivenmethod precise andnecessaryform explainswhyAndroidandJava of Javadictatethepreciseform ofcertainnecessarylinescodecalleddeclarations,whose method implementations differ. packages havethesame number ofclasses,interfacesandmethods, although,asstated,the and 6508methods whereinthelatter has616and6088,respectively.Twenty-oneofthe the FroyoversionofAndroidshowsthatform This threepercentistheheartofourmain copyrightissue. definitions andparameters ofthe37JavaAPIpackages from theJava2SE5.0platform. In particular,theAndroidplatform replicatedthesame package,method andclassnames, parameters andfunctionalityofthemethods andclasses,linescalled“declarations”or“headers.” of thelinescodearesame. Theidenticallinesarethosethatspecifythenames, contention. Comparing the37JavaandAndroi the 37packages. has sometimes beenreferred tointhislitigationasthe“structure,sequenceandorganization”of organization ofthosenames, andfunctionalityof37out166packagesintheJavaAPI,which Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page7of41 ( .T 2. Java syntaxincludes The threepercentofsourcecodeatissueincludes“declarations.”Significantly,therules A side-by-sidecomparison ofthe 37packagesintheJ2SE5.0versionofJavaversus The Androidplatform hasitsownAPI.It168packages,37ofwhicharein e.g. , 123,‘x’,“Foo”),and HE J AVA L ANGUAGE AND separators keywords ( e.g. I ( TS , {,},;), e.g. les forJavaprogramming. Thisexplanationwill API d packagessidebyside,onlythreepercent 7 , if,else,while,return). These elements er hasatotalof677classes(plusinterfaces)

— operators thatspecificlineofcodeinthesame way.

I MPORTANT must be identifiers ( e.g. , +,-,*,/,<,>), D identical whenitcomes to ETAILS ( e.g. , String, . literal United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the heavylifting,namely theactualwork oftakingtheinputs,crunchingthem, andreturningan witnesses referredtothe method bodyasthe“implementation.” Itisthemethod bodythatdoes must includetheexpression tobereturnedwhenthatlineofcodeis reached.Duringtrial,many declared tohaveareturntype,thenthemethod bodymust haveastatement andthestatement implementation. way andmust dosonomatter howdifferenttheimplementation may befrom someone else’s wishes tosupplyamethod withthesame functionalitymust writethis lineofcodeinthesame method bodyandspecifiesverypreciselyitsinput impact ontheultimate analysis.Themain pointisthatthis header lineofcodeintroducesthe witnesses frequentlyreferredtothemethod headerasthe“declaration.”Thisdiscrepancyhasno and variousmethod modifiers thatprovideadditi the typeofvaluereturnedbymethod; thecheckedexceptionsthatmethod canthrow; the name ofthemethod; thenumber, order,typeandname oftheparameters usedbythemethod; the sunforthatmonth andday. A method, forexample, could receivethemonth anddayreturntheEarth’sdeclinationto in degreesandreturnsthecosineofthatangle.Methodscanbemuch more complicated. greater ofthetwoasanoutput.Anotherexample isamethod thatreceivesanangleexpressed as the“return.”Anexample isamethod thatreceivestwonumbers asinputsandreturnsthe “arguments” areusuallypassedtothemethod asinputs.Theoutputfrom themethod isknown in theprogram. When amethod iscalledonelsewhereintheprogram orinanapplication, written. Statements arecommands thattellthecomputer todowork. command executedbytheJavacompiler totakesome action.Statements areruninthesequence as describedbelow. java.lang.Object), whichareusedtoname specificvalues,fields,methods, andclasses Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page8of41 The method bodyisablockofcodethatthenimplements themethod. Ifamethod is A method consistsofthemethod headerand themethod body.Amethod headercontains A method islikeasubroutine.Oncedeclared,itcanbeinvokedor“calledon”elsewhere These syntaxelements areusedtoform statements, eachstatement beingasingle 8 onal information aboutthemethod. Atthetrial, s, name and otherfunctionality.Anyonewho United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 It isalsoinitsownsource codefile.Itcanalsobeinheritedbyclasses. The distinctionisthata “interface” intheAPIacronym. Aninterfaceissimilar toaclass.Itcanalsocontain methods. this dilemma throughtheuseof“interfaces,”whichrefers tosomething differentfrom theword and methods from twodifferentnon-related cla parent class.Thisrestrictivenessmay beproblematic whenoneclassneedstoinheritfields that onlyadditionalfieldsormethods forthe subclassneedtobedeclared. the fieldsandmethods oftheparentclassareinheritedautomatically intothenewsubclass so new subclassisdefined,thedeclarationlineusesword“extends”toalertcompiler that the classincludesfieldsandmethods, andotherparameters. a linethatincludesthename oftheclassandotherinformation thatdefinetheclass.Thebodyof package. AllcodeinaJavaprogram must beplacedinaclass.Aclassdeclaration(orheader)is one ormore classes.Morethanonemethod canbeinaclassandmore thanoneclasscanbeina Classes areafundamental structuralelement in fields thatholdvalues(suchaspi=3.141592)andmethods thatoperateonthosevalues. “java.lang.Math.max”; “java.package.Class.method” isusedheresimply toexplaintheformat.) (The words“java.package.Class.method” wouldinarealprogram beothernames like a =java.package.Class.method() wouldsetthefield“a”toequalreturnofmethod called. where ()indicatestheinputspassedtomethod. Forexample, The method wouldbecalledonusingthecommand format “java.package.Class.method()” (or invokes)themethod andspecifiesthearguments tobepassedthemethod forcrunching. A method callisalineofcode for themethod bodiesandthisaccountsfor97percentofthecode37packages. answer. Themethod bodycanbeshortorlong.Googlecame upwithitsownimplementations Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page9of41 The Javalanguagedoesnotallowaclasstoextend (beasubclassof)more thanone Classes canhavesubclassesthat“inherit”thefunctionality of theclassitself. When a After amethod, thenexthigherlevelofsyntaxisclass.Aclassusuallyincludes Once themethod iswritten,testedandinplace,itcanbecalledontodoitswork. somewhere else , suchasinadifferentprogram thatcallson sses. TheJavaprogramming languagealleviates the Javalanguage.Aprogram iswrittenas 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 take aparticularform. There isnochoiceinhowtoexpressit.Tobespecific, thatlinereads: In ordertodeclareaparticular that thedeclarationlinebeginning“publicstatic” isentirelydictatedbytherulesoflanguage. would thenbesetasthevalueof“a.” class inthejava.langpackage,input“2”and“3” asarguments, andthenreturna“3,”which Upon reachingthisstatement, thecomputer wouldgoandfindthemax method undertheMath the program: To invokethismethod from anotherprogram (orclass),thefollowingcallcouldbeincludedin The italicizedcomments ontherightaremerely explanatoryandarenotcompiled: inheritance occursonlyattheclassandinterfacelevel. all groupfilesintofoldersonourcomputers. Thereisnoinheritancefunctionwithinpackages; from oneotherclass. class may inheritfrom more thanoneinterfacewhereas,asmentioned, aclasscanonlyinherit Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page10of41 The aboveexample illustratesapointcriticaltoourfirstmain copyrightissue,namely } public classMath{ package java.lang; Here isasimple example ofsourcecodethatillustratesmethods, classesandpackages. For convenience,classesandinterfacesaregroupedinto“packages”inthesame waywe } public staticintmax (intx,inty) { int a=java.lang.Math.max (2,3); else returny; if (x>y)returnx; functionality public staticintmax (intx,inty){ , thelanguage 10 demands // Closesclass // Closesmethod // Implementation,returnsy // // Declaresmethodmax // DeclaresclassMath // Declarespackagejava.lang

Implementation, returnsxor thatthemethod declaration United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 packages were“core”packages, accordingtoSun,fundamental tobeingableusetheJava in 1996,theAPIincluded eightpackagesofpre-writtenprograms. Atleastthreeofthese than onemethod inaclass.Packagesare convenient folderstoorganizetheclasses. designations buttheyareverysimilar asto the37packagesatissue. appended attheendofadeclaration.Androidand Javaarenotidenticalintheirthrow the program asanexceptionforspecialhandling.Thesearespecifiedvia“throw”statements the semantic constraintsoftheJavalanguage,virtualmachine willsignalthis errorto declaration specification canonlybewritteninoneway. has aprecisefunctionalchoice.Ifsomeone wantstoimplement aparticularfunction,the concerns therulesforlanguageitself.Again,eachparameter choiceotherthanthenames that themethod bodyisaboutto follow.Themarker ismandatory. Theforegoingdescription but didsoastosome arguments.) Finally,“{” isthebeginningmarker thattellsthecompiler cannot becopyrighted.(Androiddidnotcopyall “arg1” and“arg2,”sothereisadegreeofcreativityinnaming thearguments. Again,names method, statingthattheywillbeinintegerform. The“x”andthe“y”couldbe“a”“b”or will beshown.Thephrase“(intx,inty)”identifies thearguments thatmust bepassedintothe (other thanareservedword)couldhavebeenused,names themselves cannotbecopyrighted,as corresponding toaveryspecificfunctionality.Theword“max” isaname andwhileanyname Each of thesethreeparameters isdrawnfrom ashortmenu of possibilities,eachpossibility and “String”whichrespectivelymean “true/fals means thatanintegerisreturnedbythemethod. (Otheralternativesare“boolean,”“char,” instance method, thenitwouldalwaysbeinvokedwithrespecttoanobject.)Theword“int” that themethod canbeinvokedwithoutcreatinganinstanceoftheclass.(Ifthisinsteadis an then itcanonlybeaccessedbyothermethods insidethesame class.)Theword“static”means The word“public”means thatotherprograms cancallonit.(Ifthisinsteadsays“private,” Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page11of41 This bringsustotheapplication programming interface.When Javawasfirstintroduced A Javaprogram must haveatleastonecl Part ofthedeclarationamethod canlistanyexceptions.When aprogram violates 11 e,” “singlecharacter,”and“characterstring.”) ass. Atypicalprogram wouldhavemore of theparticularargument names usedinJava United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 precise form ofcommand tocallupanygivenmethod. API wouldnotrunonanorganizeddifferentl functionality. Theywouldnot,however, beinteroperable.Specifically, codewrittenfor one Put differently,many differentAPIorganiza of themethods andthewayinwhichmethods aregroupeddonothavetobethesame. desktop computers. restrictions. Javawasparticularlyusefulforwritingprograms foruseviatheInternetand and usablebyanyone,includingJavaapplicationdevelopers,uponagreement tocertainlicense over sixthousandmethods. Allofitwasdownl had grownfrom theoriginaleightto166packageswithoversixhundredclasses by Suntobecome theJavaapplication programming interface.In2008,asstated,theJavaAPI programs tocarry outvariousniftyfunctionsandtheywereorganizedintocoherentpackages for developingastandardspecifications (see theexample above). java.lang.Math.max withappropriatearguments (inputs)inthepreciseform required (a method) toreturnthegreateroftwoinputs,whichwas(andremains) callableas For example, java.lang(apackage)includedMathclass)whichinturnmax bright linebetweenthelanguageandAPI. packages inordertomake anyworthwhileuseofthelanguage.ContrarytoOracle,thereisno anyone freetousethelanguageitself(asOracleconcedesallare),must alsousethethreecore language atall.Thesepackageswerejava.lang,java.io,andjava.util.Asapracticalmatter, programs intheAPI.Theseareready-made toperform avastmenu offunctions.This isthe wheels intheAPIfrom scratch,programmers cancallonthetried-and-truepre-packaged These methods cancalluponthepre-written functionsintheAPI.Insteadofre-inventing the Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page12of41 To writeafreshprogram, aprogrammer names Although thedeclarationsmust bethesame toachievethesame functionality,thenames After Java’sintroductionin1996,SunandtheJavaCommunity Process,amechanism Each packagewasbrokenintoclassesandthoseinturnmethods. Java classesandmethods, wrotehundredsmore tions couldsupplythesame overallrange of 12 oadable from Sun’s(nowOracle’s)website y, forthename structureitselfdictatesthe a newclassandaddsfieldsmethods. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 thereon sothattherewillbepropercontextfor thecourtof appeals. Oracle hasmade much oftwosmall items copiedbyGoogle,thisorderwillnowmake findings with theirownspecializedmethods andclasses. as onestepinalargerhomework assignment. Usersanddeveloperscansupplement theAPI upon java.lang.Math.max toreturnthegreateroftwonumbers, ortofindthecosineofanangle, whole pointoftheAPI.Forexample, astudent was copiedintoGoogle’s Android.Thiswashowtheinfringement happened tooccur. ComparableTimsort totheAndroidplatform. Thus,the nine-linerangeCheckfunction While workingonthe Androidteam, Dr.BlochalsocontributedTimsort and included Timsort aspart ofitsJavaJ2SE5.0release. controlled bySun.Dr.Blochdid,infact,cont submitting hiscodeto an openimplementation of theJavaplatform, OpenJDK, whichwas He plannedtocontributeTimsort andComparableTimsort backtotheJavacommunity by at Sun.HewrotetheTimsort filesinhisownsp “ComparableTimsort,” bothofwhichincluded thesame rangeCheckfunctionhewrotewhile architect” and“Javaguru.”Around2007,Dr.Blochwrotethefiles,“Timsort.java” and to checktherangeofalistvaluesbeforesortinglist.Thiswasverysimple function. was partoftheclasslibraryfor37APIpackagesatissue.ThefunctionrangeCheck code forafunctioncalled“rangeCheck,”whichwasputintolargerfile,“Arrays.java,” holding thetitleofdistinguishedengineer.While herein bythejudge,willbesetforthbelowforbenefitofcourtappeals. This circumstance issoinnocuousandoverblownbyOraclethattheactual facts,asfound Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page13of41 3. The foregoingcompletes thefactsnecessarytodecidecopyrightabilityissuebutsince In 2009,Dr.BlochworkedonGoogle’sAndroi In 2004,Dr.BlochleftSuntoworkatGoogle,wherehecame tobethe“chiefJava Dr. JoshuaBlochworkedatSunfrom August1996throughJuly2004,eventually Oracle hasmade much ofninelinescodethatcreptintobothAndroidandJava. RANGE C HECK ANDTHE D E -C OMPILED ribute hisTimsort filetoOpenJDKandSun 13 inhighschoolcanwriteaprogram thatcancall are time andnot aspartofanyGoogleproject. workingatSun,Dr.Blochwroteanine-line d projectforapproximately oneyear. T EST F ILES . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 way toachievethespecifiedfunctionality. copied, saveandexceptfor thedeclarationsandcallswhich,asstated,canonlybewritteninone to testalongthewayleadingupfinalAndroid)andtheseminor items weretheonlyitems at trialasasingleunit. files andneverfoundtheirwayintoAndroidora files backintosourcecodeandthenusingthecode.Theseweremerely usedastest these ninelinesofcodefoundtheirwayintoanearlyversionAndroid. be mentioned again,butthereaderwillpleaseremember thatithasbeenreadilyconceded and organization,sincerangeCheckhasnothingtodowiththatissue,willnot number oflinescode. code. Thiswasaninnocentandinconsequentialinstanceofcopyinginthecontextamassive over ayearago.TherangeCheckblockofcodeappearedinclasscontaining3,179lines When discovered,therangeChecklinesweretakenoutofthen-currentversionAndroid according totheUnitedStatesCopyrightOffice,whoserulethereonstatesasfollows: Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page14of41 .N 1. Line byline,Oracletestedallfifteen million linesof codeinAndroid(andallfiles used Google alsocopiedeightcomputer files Since theremainder ofthisorderaddressesonlytheissueconcerningstructure,sequence To startwithaclear-cutrule,names, titlesandshortphrasesarenotcopyrightable, Titles of works. Pseudonyms ofindividuals (includingpenorstagenames). • • Names ofbusiness organizations,orgroups(includingthe Names ofproductsorservices. • • exclusive rightsinbriefcombinations ofwords suchas: by copyright.TheCopyrightO distinctive orlendsitselftoaplayonwords,itcannot beprotected expressions. Evenifaname, title,orshortphraseisnovel Copyright lawdoesnotprotectnames, titles,orshortphrases or AMES AND names ofperforming groups). ANALYSIS ANDCONCLUSIONSOFLAW S HORT HORT P HRASES . ffice cannotregisterclaims to 14 by decompiling thebytecodefrom eightJava ny handset.Theseeightfileshavebeentreated United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 U.S. CopyrightOffice,Circular34; bookkeeping. Itincluded blankforms, consistingofruledlines,andheadings,illustrating the Seldon not copyrights. right toafunctionalsystem, process,ormethod of A questionthenariseswhetherthecopyrightholder ismore appropriatelyassertinganexclusive that creptintousetodescribearesidualpropertyrightwhereliteralcopyingwasabsent. sequence andorganization—doesnotappearintheActoritslegislativehistory.Itisaphrase accused stolethe“structure,sequenceandorganization”ofwork.Thisphrase—structure, majority ofthecodewas whereas theCopyrightOfficedoesnot.Thisdistinctionlooms largewhere, ashere,thevast Trademark Office examines applicationsforanticipationandobviousnessbeforeallowance exclusivity lasts95yearswhereaspatenttwentyyears.And,thePatentand copyright protectionandpatentprotection.It over names ofmethods, classesandpackages. 1510, 1524n.7(9thCir.1992).Thishasrelevance Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page15of41 , 101U.S.99(1879),theworkatissuewasabook onanewsystem ofdouble-entry This ruleisfollowed intheNinthCircuit. The generalquestionpredatescomputers. IntheSupreme Court’sdecisionin Turning nowtothemore difficultquestion,thistrialshowcasesadistinction between 2. T Listings ofingredients,asinrecipes,labels,orformulas. • Catchwords, catchphrases,mottoes, slogans,orshort • A. S O EQUENCE AND HE F C D OMPUTER EVELOPMENT OF uncopyrightable. copyrightable, buttherecipeorformula itselfremains explanation ordirections,thetextdirectionsmay be When arecipeorformula isaccompanied byan advertising expressions. Baker v.Seldon not copied andthecopyrightownermust resorttoallegingthatthe P O ROGRAMS AND RGANIZATION see . L 37 C.F.R.202.1(a). AW ONTHE isanimportant distinction,forcopyright 15 . T

HEIR HEIR operationthatbelongsintherealm ofpatents, Sega Enters.,Ltd.v.Accolade,Inc. to Oracle’sclaim ofcopyrightownership C OPYRIGHTABILITY S TRUCTURE ,

, 977F.2d Baker v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Baker Ibid. with thetextsordiagrams illustratingthem: Id. law wouldfrustratetheverypurposeofpublication: Id. a method: infringement. TheSupreme Courtexplainedthat Id. The Supreme Courtframed theissueasfollows: system. Theaccusedinfringercopiedthemethod ofbookkeepingbutuseddifferent forms. Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page16of41 at 103. at 102.TheSupreme Courtwentontoexpl at 101. Itistruethat continuestobefollowed intheappellate courts,aswillbeseenbelow. Baker Baker of theart,butforpurpose ofpracticalapplication. not givenforthepurposeofpublicationinother works explanatory as necessaryincidentstotheart,andgiventherewith tothepublic; similar tothem, suchmethods anddiagrams aretobeconsidered methods anddiagrams usedtoillustratethebook,orsuchasare And wheretheartitteachescannotbeusedwithout employing the of thebook. knowledge couldnotbeusedwithoutincurringtheguiltofpiracy which itcontains.Butthisobjectwouldbefrustratedifthe useful artsistocommunicate totheworld usefulknowledge requires. Theveryobjectofpublishingabookonscienceorthe so astopreventanengineerfrom usingthem whenever occasion propounds, ortothediagrams whichheemploys toexplainthem, the authoranexclusiverighttomethods ofoperationwhichhe The copyrightofaworkonmathematical sciencecannotgiveto secured byapatentfrom thegovernment. an exclusiverightthereincanbeobtained;anditonly must besubjectedtotheexamination ofthePatentOfficebefore The claim to an inventionordiscoveryofartmanufacture public. Thatistheprovinceofletters-patent,notcopyright. been officiallymade, wouldbeasurpriseandfrauduponthe described therein,whennoexamination ofitsnoveltyhasever To givetotheauthorofbookanexclusivepropertyinart illustrate andexplain. method ofbook-keepingwhichthesaidbooksareintendedto books, hesecuredtheexclusiverighttouseofsystem or therefore, todetermine whether,inobtainingthecopyrightofhis explained andillustratedinSelden’sbooks.Itbecomes important, object ofshowingthatBakerusesthesame system asthatwhichis The evidenceofthecomplainant isprincipallydirected tothe alsoestablishedthe“merger” doctrinefor systems andmethods intermingled heldthatusingthesame accountingsystem wouldnotconstitutecopyright Baker isagedbutitnotpassé. Tothecontrary,eveninourmodern era, ain thatprotectingthemethod undercopyright 16 only patentlawcangiveanexclusiverightto United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The HouseReportthataccompanied Section102( 1994). Section102(b)stated(andstillstates): Section 102(b). amendment in1980. at 54(1976).Therewas,however,noexpressdefinitionofacomputer program untilan computer programs wouldbecopyrightableas“literaryworks.” for computers wasjustemerging asacopyrightissue.Congressdecidedinthe1976Actthat Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page17of41 The 1976Actalsocodifieda Almost acentury later,Congressrevamped theCopyrightActin1976.Bythen,software remains unchanged. copyright, thatthebasicdichotomy betweenexpressionandidea restate, inthecontextofnewsingleFederalsystem of copyright protectionunderthepresentlaw.Itspurpose isto Section 102(b)innowayenlargesorcontractsthe scopeof are notwithinthescopeofcopyrightlaw. and thattheactualprocessesormethodsembodied intheprogram programmer isthecopyrightableelementinacomputer program, other things,tomakeclearthattheexpressionadopted bythe ‘writing’ expressinghisideas.Section102(b) isintended,among processes adoptedbytheprogrammer,ratherthanmerelyto programs shouldextendprotectiontothemethodologyor Some concernhasbeenexpressedlestcopyrightincomputer explained, illustrated,orembodied insuchwork. discovery, regardlessoftheform inwhichitisdescribed, process, system, method ofoperation,concept,principle,or copyright protectiondoesnotextendtoanyidea,procedure, expressed intellectualconcepts.Section102(b)makes clearthat literary, musical, graphic,orartistic form inwhichtheauthor information revealedbytheauthor’swork.Itpertainsto Copyright doesnotprecludeothersfrom usingtheideasor such work. form inwhichitisdescribed,explained,illustrated,orembodied in of operation,concept,principle,ordiscovery,regardlessthe authorship extendtoanyidea,procedure,process,system, method In nocasedoescopyrightprotectionforanoriginalworkof .TheComputer Age andSection102(b)ofthe1976Act. B. See

Apple Computer,Inc.v.MicrosoftCorp. Baker -like limitation onthescopeofcopyrightprotectionin 17 b) oftheCopyrightActexplained:

, 35F.3d1435,1443n.11(9thCir. See H.R.

R EP .

N O . 94-1476, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 impact ontheActotherthantoinclude adefinitionof“computer program.” of relevance.Thisorderincludes asummary of importance afewpagesbelowinthisorder(emphasis added): (1979) (emphasis added).TheCommission also recognizedthe“merger” doctrine,aruleof copyright statutes.Thisdefinitionwasadopt Nimmer asvice-chairman. consisted oftwelvemembers withJudgeStanleyFuldaschairman andProfessorMelville CONTU) torecommend theextentofcopyri the NationalCommission onNewTechnologicalUsesofCopyrightedWorks (referredtoas H.R. N between copyrightabilityandnon-copyrightabilityasfollows: with thenewdefinitionof“computer program copyright protectionfor“procedure,process, 17 U.S.C.101.Moreover,theCONTUreportstatedthatSection102(b)’spreclusionof Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page18of41 AT ’

R L 5 EP C TheCourthasreviewedthe entire legislativehist The Commission recommended thatadefinitionof“computer program” beaddedtothe Recognizing thatcomputer programs posednovelcopyrightissues,Congressestablished OMM .

N O . 94-1476,at56–57(1976)(emphasis added). ’ N ON cannot protectideas. logical extensionofthefundamental principle thatcopyright limited number ofwaystoexpressagivenidea.Thisruleisthe language may becopiedwithoutinfringingwhenthereisbuta The “idea-expressionidentity”exceptionprovides thatcopyrighted to takeanother’sprogram. conceivable process(intheabsenceofapatent), butoneisnotfree Thus, oneisalwaysfreetomakeamachineperformany game. copyright ownerhasnopowertopreventothersfrom playingthe adopt andrepublishorredistributecopyrightedgame rules,butthe affects games andgame-playing iscloselyanalogous:onemay not electromechanical functioningofamachine. The waycopyright fixed inatangiblemedium ofexpressionbutdoesnotprotectthe Copyright, therefore,protectstheprogram solongasitremains certain result. used directlyorindirectlyinacomputer inordertobringabouta A “computer program” isasetofstatements orinstructionstobe N EW T ECHNOLOGICAL In thecomputercontext this meansthatwhen the CONTUreportbutitcame after-the-fact andhadlittle U ght protectionforsoftware.TheCommission SES OF ed in1980andremains inthecurrentstatute: system, method ofoperation” wasreconcilable .” TheCommission explainedthedichotomy 18 ory. Thequotedmaterial aboveistheonlypassage C OPYRIGHTED 5

W ORKS ,

F INAL R EPORT 20 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the NinthCircuitwillbe consideredfirst. case lawregardingnon-literal copyingofsoftware structure, sequenceandorganization.Norhasany di copyrighted work.Thatistheclaim here. nonetheless accusedothersofstealingthe“structure, sequenceandorganization”ofthe program. When theline-by-linelistingsaredifferent,however, some copyright ownershave Intern. Inc. amending asectionoftheActnotrelevanttothisorder. CONTU’s recommendations byaddingthedefinition Section 102(b). Id. federal courts: and theuncopyrightableprocesswasdifficult, Ibid. Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page19of41 at 22–23. The Commission realizedthatdifferentiatingbetweenthecopyrightableform ofaprogram No courtofappealshasaddressedthecopyrightability ofAPIs,much lesstheir Everyone agreesthatnoonecancopyline-for-linesomeone else’scopyrightedcomputer Congress preparednolegislativereportsdiscussingtheCONTUcomments regarding , 725F.2d521,522–25(9thCir.1984) .DecisionsOutsidetheNinthCircuit. C. make finedistinctions—thefederaljudiciary. be drawnonacase-by-casebasisbytheinstitutiondesignedto certain manifestations ofprograms from copyright,thatlineshould would befutile..Shouldalineneedtodrawnexclude To attempt toestablishsuchaline in thisreportwritten1978 drawing thelineofdemarcation more andmore difficult. applications whichadvancingtechnologywillsupplymay make [T]he many waysinwhichprograms arenow usedandthenew own works. programs andusetheideasembodied inthem inpreparingtheir language isavailable,programmers arefreetoreadcopyrighted when thatuseisnecessarytoachieveacertainresult.When other use ofideasorprogram languagepreviouslydevelopedbyothers [C]opyright protectionforprograms doesnotthreatentoblockthe use byanotherwillnotamounttoaninfringement only andessentialmeansofaccomplishingagiventask,theirlater specific instructions,eventhoughpreviouslycopyrighted,arethe See H.R.

R EP .

N O . 96-1307,at23–24(1980) 19 . expressly decidedtoleavethelinedrawing provides guidance.Circuit decisionsoutside strict court.Nevertheless,areviewofthe of computer programs tothestatuteand See AppleComputer,Inc.v.Formula . Nevertheless, Congressfollowed . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 could bepartsoftheexpression, nottheidea,ofawork.” themselves partoftheAct,theywere intended tocapturethethoughtthat“sequenceand order Whelan Id managed adentallaboratory: Dentalab wascopyrightablebecausetherewere Id following framework todealwithnon-literalcopyingofsoftware: not protectableundercopyright.Inrejectingthisargument, thecourtofappealscreated infringer copiedtheclaimant’s softwareprogram. Id. similarities: The Dentcom program handled thesame tasksastheDentalabprogram andhadthefollowing infringer developedanotherprogram, Dentco handled theadministrative andbookkeepingtasksofdentalprostheticsbusinesses.Theaccused 797 F.2d1222(3dCir.1986).Inthatcase,theclaimant ownedaprogram, Dentalab,that Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page20of41 . at1236n.28.Thephrase“structure,sequenceand organization”originatedinapassage . at1236(emphasis inoriginal).Applyingthistest, at 1228.Onthesefacts,thedistrictcourthadfound,afterabenchtrial,thataccused On appeal,theaccusedinfringerarguedthatstructureofclaimant’s program was The ThirdCircuitledoff in explainingthattheopinion usedthosewordsinterchangeablyandthat,although not program ispartoftheprogram’s expression,notitsidea. a number ofdifferentstructures,thestructureDentalab that ideacouldbeaccomplished inanumber ofdifferentwayswith different requirements from thoseofotherbusinesses). Because of adentallaboratory(whichpresumably hassignificantly [T]he ideaoftheDentalabprogram wastheefficientmanagement purpose orfunctionwouldbepartoftheexpressionidea be thework’sidea,andeverythingthatisnotnecessaryto In otherwords, reference totheendsoughtbeachievedbyworkinquestion. [T]he linebetweenideaandexpressionmay bedrawnwith procedure —performed almost identicallyinbothprograms. accounts receivable,endofdayprocedure,andmonth “subroutines” withinbothprograms —orderentry,invoicing, were virtuallyidentical.fiveparticularlyimportant of thefilestructures,andscreenoutputs,programs The programs weresimilar inthreesignificantrespects.most the purposeorfunctionofautilitarianworkwould Whelan Associates,Inc.v.JaslowDentalLaboratory, m, usingadifferentprogramming language. 20 many differentwaystostructureaprogram that Id. at1228–29. Whelan Id . at1239,1248. foundthatthestructureof . , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Id. into itsstructuralcomponents: instead an“abstract-filtration-comparison” test. Whelan different sourcecode(usingthesame programming language).TheSecondCircuitcriticized The accusedinfringerdevelopeditsownprogram withsubstantiallysimilar structurebut the particularlanguagethatcomputer’s operatingsystem wouldbeabletounderstand. the claimant ownedaprogram designedtotranslate thelanguageofanotherprogram into by theSecondCircuit. Instead, most circuits,includingours,haveadopted of appeals. has sincebeencriticizedbysubsequenttreatises,articles,andcourts,includingourowncourt copyrightability onastructure,sequenceandorganizationtheory. decision foundbytheundersignedjudgethataffirmed (ordirected)afinaljudgment of structure, sequenceandorganizationofcomput This decisionplainlyseems tohavebeenthe free tocome upwiththeirownversionbutc (9th Cir.1994). of dentalprostheticsbusinesseswithdifferentstructuresanddesigns. other waystoperform thesame functionofhandlingtheadministrative andbookkeepingtasks held thatthe Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page21of41 at 706. Perhaps becauseitwasthefirstappellatedecisiontowadeintothisproblem, In To summarize, inaffirming thedistrict fortakingtoonarrowaviewofthe“idea”program. TheSecondCircuitadopted Computer AssociatesInternational,Inc.v.Altai See SegaEnters.,Ltd.v.Accolade,Inc. structure court wouldthenbeable tosiftoutallnon-protectablematerial. those ideas,andelements that aretakenfrom thepublicdomain, a incorporated ideas,expression thatisnecessarilyincidentalto Then, byexamining each ofthesepartsforsuchthingsas the allegedlyinfringed program intoitsconstituentstructuralparts. abstract-filtration-comparison test], acourtwouldfirst breakdown In ascertainingsubstantialsimilarity under[the oftheDentalabprogram wascopyrightablebecausethereweremany See

Apple Computer,Inc.v.MicrosoftCorp. ould notappropriatetheDentalabstructure. high-water mark ofcopyrightprotectionforthe court’s finaljudgment ofinfringement, er programs. Itwasalsotheonlyappellate 21 The testfirstdissectedthecopyrightedprogram , 977F.2d1510,1524–25(9thCir.1992). some variationofanapproachtakenlater , 982F.2d693(2dCir.1992), , 35F.3d1435,1445 Id. at 1238.Otherswere Whelan Whelan United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 should beprecludedfrom copyrightprotection. held thatstructuresbasedontheseconsider the program willberun.” consideration certainexternalitiessuchasthememory constraintsofthecomputer uponwhich the program’s speed,efficiency,aswellsimplicity foruseroperation,whiletakinginto the courtofappealsreliedonpremise thatprogrammers fashionedstructures“tomaximize The courtexplainedthisasfollows: Ibid its reasoningasfollows: copyrightable whileefficientstructuresmay not Id. structures dictatedbyefficiency.Acourtmust inquire Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page22of41 at 708(emphasis inoriginal).Paradoxically,thismeant thatnon-efficientstructuresmight be . Efficiencyalsoencompassed usersimplicity andeaseofuse. Thus, for thefiltration step,thecourtof appealsoutlinedthreetypesof structuresthat Then, thetestfilteredoutstructuresthatwerenotcopyrightable.Forthisfiltrationstep, Second , copyrightprotectiondidnotextendtost mechanical specificationsof thecomputer onwhichaparticular is oftencircumscribed byextrinsicconsiderationssuchas(1)the result ofthefactthataprogrammer’s freedom ofdesignchoice environment withoutemploying standardtechniques. Thisisa to perform particularfunctions inaspecificcomputing [I]n many instancesitisvirtuallyimpossible towriteaprogram workable options. range ofchoiceastomake onlyoneortwoforms ofexpression subroutine —efficiencyconcernsmay sonarrowthepractical a program — which aprogrammer may effectuatecertain functionswithin While, hypothetically,theremight beamyriad ofwaysin aspect oftheprogram’s structure. they approximate theideaorprocessembodied inthatparticular Thus, themore efficientasetofmodules are,themore closely formulating themost succinctmathematical computation. efficiency isakintoderivingthemost conciselogicalproofor In thecontextofcomputer program design,theconceptof modules hasmerged withtheirunderlyingidea andisunprotected. by theprogrammer’s choice ofaspecificmodule orgroupof implemented. Iftheanswerisyes,thenexpressionrepresented efficiently toimplement thatpartoftheprogram’s processbeing whether theuseof Id. i.e. at 698.Becausethesewere“practicalconsiderations,”thecourt , expresstheideaembodied inagiven this particularset ations werenotcopyrightableexpressions. 22 First be. Nevertheless,theSecondCircuitexplained ofmodules [is]necessary , copyrightprotectiondidnotextendto ructures dictatedbyexternalfactors. Id. at 708–09. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 under examination. ForSection102(b)processes,thecourtgavefollowingdescription: faire unprotectable elements ofprocesses,facts,publicdomain information, merger material, Id. software program’s structure: claimant todetermine belt size.TheTenthCircuitofferedthefollowingdescriptionofa published formulas inconjunctionwithcertainmathematical constantsdevelopedbythe by performing complicated calculationsinvolvingnumerous variables.Theprogram used developed acomputer program thatdetermined theproperrubberbeltforaparticularmachine Co. v.BandoChemicalIndustries,Ltd. infringement. product, andtheirimpact ontheprogram wasnotlargeenoughtodeclarecopyright discussed above,onlyafewlistsandmacros inaccusedproductweresimilar tothecopied before it,theSecondCircuitheldthatafterremoving unprotectableelements usingthecriteria program thathavebeenfreelyaccessible,cannotbeappropriated. domain. Thecourtreasonedthatmaterials inthepublicdomain, suchaselements ofacomputer Id. Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page23of41 at 835.AshadtheSecondCircuit,TenthCircuit heldthatfiltrationshouldeliminate the at 709–10. material, andotherunprotectable elements suggestedbytheparticularfactsofprogram The TenthCircuitelaboratedontheabstract-filtration-comparison testin Third , copyrightprotectiondidnotextendtostructuresalreadyfoundinthepublic Id. modules, orasalgorithms. found aspartofthesystem architecture, asoperationswithin purpose levelofabstraction. Mostcommonly, processeswillbe that processescanbefound atanylevel,exceptperhapsthemain Returning thentoourlevelsofabstractionframework, wenote interact witheachother. performed bydiscretemodules, andhoweachofthesemodules the program operates interms ofitsvariousfunctions,whichare The program’s architectureorstructureisadescriptionofhow accepted programming practiceswithinthecomputer industry. (4) demands oftheindustrybeingserviced;and(5)widely conjunction; (3)computer manufacturers’ designstandards; other programs withwhichaprogram isdesignedtooperatein program isintendedtorun;(2)compatibility requirements of at 714–15.Thecopyrightclaim, inshort,failed. , 9F.3d823(10thCir.1993).There,theclaimant 23 Ibid. Ultimately, inthecase Gates Rubber scenes a United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Borland includedtheLotus menu command hierarchyinitsprogram tomake itcompatible designated seriesofcommands automatically. single pre-programmed macro keystroke,causingtheprogram torecallandperform the macro keystroke.Then, toexecutethatseriesofcommands, theuseronlyneededtotype could designateaseriesofcommand choices(sequence ofmenus andsubmenus) withasingle than 50menus andsubmenus. Lotus1-2-3alsoallowed userstowrite“macros,” wherebyauser such as“Copy,”“Print,”and“Quit.”Inall,Lotus 1-2-3had469commands arrangedintomore a computer. Usersmanipulated andcontrolledtheprogram viaaseriesofmenu commands, spreadsheet program thatenableduserstoperform accountingfunctionselectronicallyon International, Inc. that fit thisframework. Tenth Circuitremanded becausethedistrictcourthadfailedtomake specificfindings elements from copyrightprotectionunderthe programming practices,andtargetindustrypr also listedmany externalconsiderations—suchascompatibility, computer industry Id. Id. Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page24of41 at 838&n.14(allcitationsomitted except at 837.Thecourtdescribedthe The accusedinfringerBorland developedacompeting spreadsheetprogram. The FirstCircuitweighedinwithits1995decision accordingly werefrainfrom discussingtheissue. of the copyright. Thisappealdoesnotrequireustodetermine thescope has thepotentialtoeffect [sic] widelythelawof computer protectability of interfacing andthatthistopicisverysensitive We recognizethatthe programming practices. industry practicesanddemands, andcomputer industry (9th Cir.1993),computer manufacturer designstandards,target Enterprises Ltd.v.Accolade,Inc. software standardsandcompatibility requirements, include: hardwarestandardsandmechanical specifications, In theareaofcomputer programs theseexternalfactorsmay elements ofaprogram thathavebeendictatedbyexternalfactors. The , 49F.3d807(1stCir.1995).In scenes afaire scenes afaire * doctrinealsoexcludesfrom protectionthose doctrineasitrelatestointerfacing and scenes afaire scenes afaire actices anddemands —thatwould exclude scenes afaire Sega Id. 24 , 977F.2d1510,1525–27 doctrineforcomputer programs asfollows: at 809–10. ). LiketheSecondCircuit,TenthCircuit doctrinemay implicate the Lotus , theclaimant ownedtheLotus1-2-3 Lotus DevelopmentCorp.v.Borland doctrine. Ultimately, the Sega United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 to name thecommand terms andhowtostructuretheirhierarchy, itwasneverthelessan Ibid operation” underSection102(b).Thecourtexplained: of theprogram’s functionalcapabilities,itshouldbeproperlycategorizedasa“method of Id. copyrightable becauseitwasamethod ofopera expression. command terms, reflectedintheLotusmenu command hierarchy,constitutedcopyrightable Thus, thedistrictcourthadconcludedthatLotusdevelopers’choiceandarrangement of copyrightable expressionbecausethereweremany waystoconstructaspreadsheetmenu tree. object code.(Theopiniondidnotsaywhetherth their Lotusmacros. Insodoing,Borlanddi be abletoswitchtheBorlandprogram withouthavingtolearnnewcommands orrewrite with Lotus1-2-3sothatspreadsheetuserswhowerealreadyfamiliar withLotus1-2-3would Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page25of41 at 815. . Thus,thecourtreasoned thatalthoughLotushadmade “expressive”choicesofwhat The courtreasonedthatbecausethemenu command hierarchywasessentialtomake use The FirstCircuit,however,heldthattheLotusmenu command hierarchywasnot The districtcourthadruledthattheLotus1-2-3menu command hierarchywasa Id. a uncopyrightable“method ofoperation.” Lotus menu command hierarchy.ThustheLotus1-2-3codeisnot substantially thesame way,however,Borlandhadtocopythe (and indeeditdidnot);toallowusersoperate its programs in Lotus 1-2-3,BorlanddidnothavetocopyLotus’s underlyingcode controlled .Inotherwords,tooffer the same capabilitiesas serves asthemethod bywhichtheprogram isoperatedand present Lotus1-2-3’sfunctional capabilities totheuser;italso The Lotusmenu command hierarchydoesnotmerely explainand describe thatmethod. than described,otherpeoplewouldstillbefree toemploy or own words.Similarly, ifanewmethod ofoperationisusedrather would befreetoemploy thatmethod andtodescribeitintheir copyright protectiontothemethod ofoperationitself;otherpeople Thus atextdescribinghowtooperatesomething wouldnotextend something, whetheritbeacar,foodprocessor,orcomputer. § 102(b),referstothemeans bywhichapersonoperates We thinkthat“method ofoperation,”asthatterm isusedin at 810–11. d notcopyanyofLotus’sunderlyingsourceor 25 tion underSection102(b).Thecourtexplained: e programs werewritteninthesame language.) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 uncopyrightable “method ofoperation.”The the DistrictofMassachusettsin Supreme Court(fourtofour). (affirming summary judgment againstcopyrightowner).In author’s work. The Supreme Courtconcludedthatprotection onlyextendedtotheoriginalcomponents ofan temptation toawardcopyrightprotectionmerely because alotofsweatwentintothework. meant torewardauthorsforthe“sweatofbrow.”Thismeant thatweshould notyieldtothe organized inalphabeticalorder.TheSupreme C copyrightability ofatelephonedirectorycomprised ofnames, addresses,andphonenumbers compilations, providedsome generalprinciples.In Co., Inc. which isstillgoodlaw,providesguidanceandinforms howweshould read Section102(b). four-to-four affirmance andhas,thus,neverreachedthegeneralquestion.Nonetheless, The Supreme Courtmissed theopportunity to addresstheseissuesin instructing howtouseCPR.” copyright didnotprotectthe“technologicme performed bytherescuer.” measuring heart activityandsignalingthequantitytiming of CPRcompressions tobe program wassimilar because it“perform[ed] thesame taskinthesame way,thatis,by contained in[his]softwareprogram.” whereby CPRinstructionsareprovidedbyco program forperforming CPRandarguedthathi Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page26of41 The FederalCircuithadtheopportunitytoapply Another Supreme Courtdecision, Our caseisgovernedbythelawinNinthCircuitand,ofcourse,Supreme Court. , 499U.S.340(1991),whichdealtprimarily withthecopyrightabilityof purelyfactual is thin.Notwithstanding avalidcopyright,subsequentcompiler This inevitablymeans thatthecopyrightinafactualcompilation .DecisionsintheSupremeCourtandourCircuit. D. Id. at 353.TheSupreme Courtconcluded: Ibid Ibid . Thecourtofappealsrejectedthisargument, holdingthat Hutchins v.ZollMedicalCorp. . (citing Id. Feist Publications,Inc.v.RuralTelephoneServices at 1384.Theclaimant arguedthattheaccused Lotus mputerized display,and[]theuniquelogic thod oftreatingvictims byusingCPRand Lotus 26 s copyrightcoveredthe“system oflogic ). ourt rejectedthenotionthatcopyrightlawwas decision wasaffirmed byanevenlydivided Feist Lotus , theSupreme Courtconsideredthe Hutchins inanappealoriginatingfrom , 492F.3d1377(Fed.Cir.2007) , theclaimant owneda Lotus duetothe Baker , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the accusedproductdidnothavesimilar sourceorobjectcode. organization oftheprogram wasexpressiona control wastewatertreatment plants.Thedistri copied hisprogram’s non-literalfeatures. The claimant, whoownedacomputer program foroutlining,alleged thatanaccusedinfringer the extrinsicandintrinsictests.Thispe of appealsoutlinedatwo-parttestfor determining similarity betweencomputer programs: protection. Johnson Controls structure, thestructureofprogram wasexpressionratherthananidea. of common functions.Sincetherewassome discretionandopportunityforcreativityinthe indicating theremay havebeenroom forindividualized expressionintheaccomplishment sophisticated andeachindividualapplicationwascustomized totheneedsofpurchaser, of appealsaffirmed thepreliminary injunction,statingthattheclaimant’s program wasvery standard ofreviewonappealwaslimited toabuseofdiscretionandclearerror.Ourcourt Computer Associates This decisionarrivedbetweentheThirdCircuit’s Johnson Controls,Inc.v.PhoenixControlSys., organization inquestionqualifiesasanexpressionofidearatherthanitself. can beprotectableundercopyrightdependingonwhetherthestructure,sequenceand components ofaprogram, includingthestructure, Id. Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page27of41 at 349. In In Turning toourownNinthCircuit,cour Johnson Controls Brown BagSoftwarev.SymantecCorp. does notfeaturethesame selectionandarrangement. aid inpreparingacompeting work,solongasthecompeting work remains freetousethefactscontainedinanother’spublication , however,didnotelaborateonwhichpar decision. , theclaimant developedasystem ofcomputer programs to Johnson Controls rtained toinfringement, notcopyrightability. Id. at1472.Theclaimant allegedthatseventeen nd grantedapreliminary injunctioneventhough ct courtfoundthatthestructure,sequenceand 27 isoneofOracle’smainstays herein. , 960F.2d1465(9thCir.1992),ourcourt Whelan sequenceandorganizationuserinterface, t ofappealshasrecognizedthatnon-literal , 886F.2d1173,1175(9thCir.1989). decisionandtheSecondCircuit’s ticular structuresdeservedcopyright Id. at 1174.Therefore,the Id. at 1175. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Circuit affirmed thedistrict court’sprelim but waswritteninadifferentprogramming language. Nintendo game console.Atari’snewprogram 10NES program through reverseengineeringanddevelopeditsownprogram tounlockthe Nintendo game consolefrom acceptingunauthorized claimant NintendosuedAtariforcopyingthe the FederalCircuithadoccasiontointerpretNinthcopyrightprecedent.In the copyrightabilityrulingsquotedabove. Id. found thateachfeaturewaseithernotprotectableorsimilar asamatter oflaw: specific featuresintheprograms weresimilar. Onsummary judgment, thedistrictcourthad Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page28of41 at 1472–73.Ourcourtofappealsaffirmed thedi Applying ourNinthCircuitprecedents, In Atari GamesCorp.v.NintendoofAmericaInc. windows ofthetwoprograms lookdifferent. computer softwareindustry”.[and]thatthepull-down an .expressionthatis,ifnotstandard,thencommonplace inthe first foundthat“[p]laintiffsmay features, thedistrictcourtmade threeseparaterulings.Thecourt concerned “theuseofpull-downwindows.”Regardingthese The thirdgroupoffeaturescommon toPC-OutlineandGrandview outlining program.” and editdata.isessentialtotheveryideaofacomputer held that“thesimilarity ofusingthemain editingscreentoenter the ideasinherentinfeaturesare.distinct.”Thecourtalso of theoutliningprogram” and,furthermore, “[t]heexpressionof The districtcourtdeclaredthat“thesefunctions constitutetheidea the PC-Outlineprogram []canbeperformed byGrandview.” the menu bar”andthefactthat“virtuallyalloffunctions A secondgroupoffeaturesinvolved“ninefunctionslistedin were heldtobeunprotectableundercopyright. took theform offouroptionsintheprograms’ openingmenus, edit thework,andprintwork.”Assuch,thesefeatures,which computer programs” suchas“theneedtoaccessexistingfiles, claim ofcopyrightin“concepts.fundamental toahostof The districtcourtruledthatonegroupoffeaturesrepresenteda inary injunctionforcopyrightinfringement. Nintendo 10NESprogram, whichpreventedthe generated signalsindistinguishablefrom 10NES Johnson Controls 28 not claim copyrightprotectionof strict court’sorderwithoutelaboratingon game cartridges.Atari decipheredthe Id. , 975F.2d832(Fed.Cir.1992), at 835–36. and Brown Bag , theFederal Atari , the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 it hadorganizationandsequencingunnecessarytotheunlockingfunction: The FederalCircuitheldthatthe10NESprogram containedcopyrightableexpressionbecause interacted withthesoftware inthegame cartridgetoachievecompatibility. Sega game consoleandagame cartridge,thatis,howthesoftwarein game console infringer hadtocopyobjectcodeinorderunderstand theinterfaceproceduresbetween the unprotectablesegments. Thesetwodecisionswillnowbedescribedindetail. larger holdingsthatithadbeenfairusetocopysoftwarereverse-engineersoasisolate interfaces necessaryforinteroperability.TheSection102(b)holdingsaroseinthecontextof preliminary injunction. concluding thatthe10NESprogram containe Ibid 10NES program Id. of objectcodefor thepurposeof achievingcompatibility wasfair use.Notably,initsfair-use so thatitscartridgescould runontheSegaconsol wrote itsownsourcecode tomimic thosesame interface proceduresinitsowngame cartridges After learninganddocumenting theseinteractions Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page29of41 at 840(emphasis added).TheFederalCircuitstatedthattherewerecreativeelements inthe . (citationomitted). Thus,theFederal Circuitheldthatthedistrictcourtdidnoterrin In Next came two decisionsholdingthatSec Sega EnterprisesLtd.v.Accolade,Inc. unnecessary within the10NESprogram creativeorganizationandsequencing expression necessarilyincidenttoanidea.Nintendoincorporated Nintendo’s 10NESprogram containsmore thananideaor to generateadatastream whichunlockstheNESconsole. produced experttestimony showingamultitude ofdifferentways as alternateexpressionsareavailable.Inthiscase,Nintendohas generates thatdatastream doesnotmerge withtheprocesssolong The uniquearrangement ofcomputer program expressionwhich discerns noclearerrorinthedistrictcourt’sconclusion. as thegenerationofadatastream tounlockaconsole.Thiscourt The districtcourtdefinedtheunprotectable10NESideaorprocess beyond theliteralexpressionusedtoeffectunlockingprocess. creative element ofthe10NESundercopyright. serves asthekeytounlockNES.Nintendomay protectthis sequence tocreateapurelyarbitrarydatastream. Thisdatastream arbitrary programming instructionsandarrangedthem inaunique tothelockandkeyfunction.Nintendochose d protectableexpressionandaffirmed the 29 , 977F.2d1510(9thCir.1992),theaccused tion 102(b)barsfrom copyrightsoftware e. Ourcourtofappealsheld thatthecopying (interfaceprocedures),theaccusedinfringer Id . at1515–16. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Nintendo console: signal thatunlockedtheSegaconsole,unlike “multitude of different waystounlock”the found thattheNintendo’s10NESsecuritysyst console. Ourcourtofappealsdistinguishedthe interface procedureforuseinitsowngames toensurecompatibility withtheSegaGenesisgame copyrightable underSection102(b).Theaccused infringerAccoladewasfreetocopythis Our courtofappealsfoundthatthisinterf compatibility was“20bytesof initializationcodeplusthelettersS–E–G–A.” analysis, ourcourtofappeals Sega programs andsummarized itsanalysis of copyrightabilityasfollows: applications, multiple times todescribethefunctional aspectof theinteractionbetweensoftware 1522. Thecourtusedthephrase“interfaceprocedures,”aterm describingtheinterfacebetween — aspectsofSega’sprograms thatarenotpr solely inordertodiscoverthefunctional requirements for compatibility withtheGenesisconsole functional aspectsnotcopyrightableunderSection102(b) Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page30of41 , 977F.2dat1526(emphasis added).In is notafairuse.Ourdecision onthispointisentirelyconsistent incorporation ofthecode which“unlocks”theGenesisIIIconsole We thereforerejectSega’sbelatedsuggestionthat Accolade’s the Genesisconsole. 982–84, 103L.Ed.2d118(1989).Segadoesnotholdapatenton Thunder CraftBoats,Inc. standards imposed bythepatentlaws. work, thecreatorofworkmust satisfythemore stringent lawful monopoly overtheideaorfunctionalprincipleunderlyinga protection byCongress. of hiswork—aspectsthatwereexpresslydeniedcopyright copyright gainsadefactomonopoly over copyrighted objectcodeisperseanunfairuse,theownerof analysis ofthesecondstatutoryfairusefactor.Ifdisassembly of object codenecessarilyentailscopying.Thosefactsdictateour disassembled, eitherbyhandormachine. Disassembly of Because objectcodecannotbereadbyhumans, itmust be not visibletotheuserduringoperationofvideogame program. are distributedforpublicuseonlyinobjectcodeform, andare compatibility. The order tounderstandthefunctionalrequirements forGenesis object codeinSega’svideogame cartridgeswasnecessaryin In summary, therecordclearlyestablishesthatdisassembly ofthe expressly heldthattheinterfaceproceduresforcompatibilitywere interface procedures 17 U.S.C.§102(b) , 489U.S.141,159–64,109S.Ct.971, ace procedurewasfunctionalandthereforenot otected bycopyright.17U.S.C.§102(b).” Sega em wasinfringed,because therewasonlyone 30 Atari , theinterfaceprocedurethatwasrequiredfor decision,wheretheFederalCircuithad Bonito Boats,Inc.v. for theGenesisconsole the functionalaspects : “AccoladecopiedSega’ssoftware . Inordertoenjoya Id. at1524n.7. Id. at United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the factsof unnecessary forcompatibility betweentheconsoleandgame cartridges.Thiswasinappositeto had copiedtheentire10NESprogram, italsohadcopiedaspectsofthe 10NES program the lock-and-keyfunction. that in aspects unnecessaryforcompatibility (possiblycopyrightable).Ourcourt ofappealsexplained functional aspectsnecessaryforcompatibility (notcopyrightable)versus copyingfunctional Sega Connectix Corporation reverse-engineering decisionbyourcourtofappeals, expression couldstillexistforaspectsunnecessarycompatibility. compatibility wasunprotectable,specifically Thus, theholdingofourcourtappealswasthataspectaprogram necessaryfor aspect ofSega’sprogram infringer copiedobjectcode fortheSonyPlayst could beplayedonadesktop computer runningtheemulator. Inordertodothis,theaccused duplicated theinterfaceprocedures ofSony’sconsolesothatgames writtenforSony’s console Playstation game console; instead,theaccusedinfringercreatedanemulated environment that Sony Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page31of41 , 977F.2dat1524n.7. . There,theaccusedinfringerConnectixdidnot createitsowngames forSony’s Atari This orderreads The Sega Sega , theNintendogame console’s10NESprogram hadfunctionality console. that thereisamultitude of different waystounlocktheGenesisIII initialization codeplusthelettersS–E–G–A.Thereisnoshowing appears tobefunctional.Itconsistsmerely of20bytes 839. Thecircumstances areclearlydifferenthere.Sega’skey data stream whichunlockstheNESconsole.” concluded thatthereisa“multitude of different waystogeneratea that program. NES console.Creativityandoriginalitywentintothedesignof which generatesanarbitrarydatastream “key”whichunlocksthe security system, thatsystem consistedofanoriginalprogram Nintendo with , wheretheaccusedinfringerAccolade’sfinalproductduplicated decisionanditscompatibility reasoningwasfollowed inasubsequent Atari v.Nintendo , 203F.3d596(9thCir.2000).Thefactsweresomewhat differentin extendedcopyrightprotectiontoNintendo’s10NES Sega necessary See alsoAtari footnoteseven(quotedabove)asdrawingalinebetweencopying See id. at840.Moreover,thefederalcircuit for compatibility betweentheconsoleand game cartridges. , 975F.2d832(Fed.Cir.1992).Although , 975F.2dat840.SincetheaccusedinfringerAtari invokingSection102(b),butcopyrightable 31 ation’s operatingsoftware, itsBIOSprogram, in Sony ComputerEntertainment,Inc.,v. Atari , 975F.2dat unnecessary only the to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 521, 525(9thCir.1984). Microsoft Corp. also TriadSys.Corp.v.Southeastern Exp.Co. indicating uncopyrightability. Othersuchdecisionswere 1980 tohundredsofthousandstoday. patents inforcetheUnitedStateshasdramatically increasedfrom barelyathousandin 35 F.3d1435,1445(9thCir.1994). Accolade, Inc. to the letter. Tothecontrary,itisnotadeadIttosaythat patent. Thisisnottosaythatinfringement ofthestructure,sequenceandorganizationisadead monopoly bycopyrightoverwhatCongressexpr has beendrivenbyfidelitytoSection102(b)andrecognitionofthedangerconferringa injunction. Sincethen,thetrendofcopyrightdecisionshasbeenmore cautious.Thistrend re-used bytheNinthCircuitsince in the1980s,most notablyintheThirdCircuit’s trajectory inwhichenthusiasm forprotectionof “purpose ofgainingaccesstotheunprotectedelements ofSony’ssoftware.” infringer’s intermediate stepofcopyingobjectcodewasfairusebecauseitdoneforthe Playstation BIOScontained“unprotectedfuncti the desktopcomputer. CitingSection102(b)and Thus, games writtenforthePlaystationconsolewereplayableonConnectix’semulator for source codeto After uncoveringthesesignals(again,applicationinterfaces),theaccusedinfringerwroteitsown order todiscoversignalssentbetweentheBIOSandrestofgame console. Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page32of41 Computer Associates 6

In thisconnection,sincetheCONTUreportwas issuedin1980,thenumber ofsoftware With apologyforitslength,theabovesummary ofthedevelopment ofthelawrevealsa Sega and , 35F.3d1435,1444(9thCir. 1994); , 977F.2d1510,1525(9thCir.1992); duplicate theseinterfaces Sony arenottheonlyNinthCircuit decisionsplacingapremium onfunctionalityas approach,includinginourowncircuit. * Johnson Controls , 64F.3d1330,1336(9thCir. 1995); See inordertocreateitsemulator forthedesktopcomputer. Iain Cockburn, Apple Computer,Inc.v.Formula Intern.,Inc. surveyed inthesummary earlierinthisorder. 32 “structure,sequenceandorganization”peaked onal elements,” andconcludedthattheaccused Whelan essly warnedshouldbeconferredonlyby Sega in1989,adecisionaffirming preliminary Apple Computer,Inc.v.MicrosoftCorp. , ourcourtofappealsstatedthatthe decision.Thatphrasehasnotbeen Patents, TicketsandtheFinancing Whelan See SegaEnters.,Ltd.v. Apple Computer,Inc.v. approachhasgivenway Id. at 602–03. , 725F.2d Id. See at 600. 6

, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Computer Software Ginsburg, “process,” “system,” and“method ofoperation”shouldnot (internal citationsomitted). Similarly, Professor Ja even ifthatworkhappenstoconsist of Nimmer) hasarguedthatSection 102(b)shouldnotdenyc for computer programs aswellthepre- that Section102(b)codifiedthe Protection principles. Pamela Samuelson, asserted attrial.) aspects oftheJavaAPI. of Early-StageFirms:EvidencefromtheSoftwareIndustry these principlesofcopyrightlaw: J Mark Lemley, observe: M OURNAL Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page33of41 ANAGEMENT 7 Theissuehasbeendebatedinthejournals. Under Section102(b),copyrightprotectionneverextendstoany • Under thenames doctrine,names andshortphrasesarenot • Under themerger doctrine,whenthereis only one(orafew) • In viewoftheforegoing,thisorderconcludesthatourimmediate caseiscontrolledby , 85T Four ReasonsandaParadox: TheManifestSuperior 1,26–27(1995).BothOracleandSunhaveappliedforreceivedpatentsthatclaim EX Convergence intheLawofSoftwareCopyright? idea, procedure,process,system, method ofoperation orconcept copyrightable. such expressionbycopyright. ways toexpresssomething, then noonecanclaim ownershipof subroutines. idea oftheprogram orofoneitspotentiallypatentable computer program willbecome amere incidenttothepatentable the copyrightable“structure,sequenceandorganization”ofa computer programs disappear.Muchofwhathasbeenconsidered reasons thereoncewereforbroadcopyrightprotectionof As softwarepatentsgainincreasinglybroadprotection,whatever . , 94 S

L. 7 TRATEGY

R

C EV OLUM . 1921(2007).Incontrast,ProfessorDavi . See, e.g. Why CopyrightLawExcludesSystemsandProcessesfrom theScopeof

Baker L. 729–73(2009).Thishascausedatleastonenotedcommentator to

R EV exclusionofprocedures,processes, * anidea,procedureorprocess. 1-2N . 2559,2569–70(1994). , U.S.Patents6,598,093and7,006,855.(Thesewerenot Baker exclusionofhigh-levelabstracti ne Ginsburghasarguedthatthe Section102(b)terms 33 For example, ProfessorPamela Samuelson hasargued opyright protectionto“theexpression”ofawork beunderstoodliterallyforcomputer programs. Jane ity ofCopyrightOverSuiGeneris Protectionof d Nimmer (thesonofProfessorMelville , 18J systems, andmethods ofoperation IMMER ON , 10H OURNAL OF ons suchasideas,concepts,and IGH C OPYRIGHT T ECHNOLOGY E CONOMICS §2.03[D] L AW & United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 try theirhandatwriting a differentimplementation, meaning thattheyarefreetousethesame a simple example, buteven ifamethod resembles higher mathematics, everyoneisstillfreeto implementing codeinthemethod bodyisdifferentfrom thecopyrightedimplementation. Thisis was andremains freetowriteitsowncodecarryouttheidentical functionsolongasthe comparing twonumbers andreturningthegreater.Google —andeveryoneelseintheworld importantly, ideas,conceptsandfunctionscannotbemonopolized bycopyright. Others arefreetowritetheirownimplementation toaccomplish theidenticalfunction,for, The Actconfersownershiponlyoverthespecific wa specification, nomatter howcreativethecopyrightedimplementation orspecificationmay be. copyright lawdoesnotconferownershipoveranyandallwaystoimplement afunctionor same functionorspecificationof anyandallmethods usedintheJavaAPI.ContrarytoOracle, anyone isfreeundertheCopyrightActtowritehisorherownmethod tocarryoutexactlythe in thisproceeding.Aslongasthespecificcodewrittentoimplement amethod isdifferent, The readerwillremember thatamethod islikeasubroutineandoversixthousandareinplay more fundamentally whetherthereplicatedelements werecopyrightableinthefirstplace. three percent).Themain issueaddressedhereiniswhetherthisviolated theCopyrightActand the overallname organizationandfunctionality of 37packagesintheJavaAPI(the took caretoprovidefreshline-by-lineimplementations (the97percent), itgenerallyreplicated All agreethatGooglewasfreetousetheJavalanguagewriteitsownAPI.While Google Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page34of41 To returntoourexample, onemethod intheJavaAPIcarriesoutfunction of This leadstothefirstholdingcentralthisorderanditconcernsmethod level. All agreethateveryonewasandremains freetoprogram intheJavalanguageitself. Under • APPLICATION intellectual property. copyrightability merely torewardaninvestment made inabodyof interoperability arenotcopyrightable. regardless ofitsform. Functionalelements essentialfor Feist

OF , weshouldnotyieldtothetemptation tofind

CONTROLLING 34

LAW y inwhichtheauthorwroteouthisversion.

TO

CONTROLLING

FACTS United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 will beanunprotectableprocess. that whileaparticularsetofinstructions is (10th Cir.1993); The method implementation isthe copyright law.”H.R. “the actualprocessesormethods embodied intheprogram arenotwithinthescopeof implementation inbetween istheirown.TheHouseReport,quotedabove,statedin1976that inputs toderivethesame outputs(whilethrowingthesame exceptions)solongasthe copyright violationinusingtheidenticaldeclara from claiming exclusivecopyright ownershipof Significantly, whenthereisonlyonewaytowrite something, themerger doctrine barsanyone declaration wouldcarryoutsome must beidentical subroutine.” a myriad ofwaysinwhichaprogrammer may .expresstheideaembodied inagiven implementations aredifferent.TorepeattheSecondCircuit’sphrasing,“theremight be to usethesame method specification(inputs, outputs, parameters) solongastheline-by-line how creativeorimaginative aJavamethod specificationmay be,theentireworldisentitled of thetyperequiredforpatents.Thisorderholdsthat,underCopyrightAct,nomatter and allwaystocarryoutmethods for95year implementation, Oraclewouldbypassthisentirepatentscheme andclaim ownershipoverany inventions forvalidityandifthepatentisallowed,itlaststwentyyears.Basedonasingle are protectableonlyunderthePatentAct.TheandTrademark Officeexamines such The same istruefor classes.Butsuchinventions—attheconceptandfunctionality level— can becreative,eveninventive,includingthechoicesofinputsneededandoutputsreturned. was acreativeendeavor.Ofcourse,thatistr Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page35of41 8 Eachmethod hasasingularpurposeorfunction, To carryoutanygivenfunction,themethod specificationassetforthinthedeclaration Much ofOracle’sevidenceattrialwenttoshowthatthedesignmethods inanAPI Computer Associates see

Apple Computer,Inc.v.Formula Intern.Inc. undertheJavarules(saveonlyforchoicesof argument names). Any other

R EP .

N Gates RubberCo.v.BandoChemical Industries,Ltd. O . 94-1476,at57(1976). other , 982F.2dat708.Themethod specificationisthe expression copyrightable, theunderlying computer processisnot). function.Thedeclarationrequiresprecision. ue. Inventinganewmethod todeliveranewoutput s —withoutanyvettingbytheCopyrightOffice . Noonemay monopolize the 35 tions. Norcantherebeanycopyrightviolation that expression.Therefore,therecanbeno and so,thebasicfunctionorpurpose ofamethod , 725F.2d521,525(9thCir. 1984) (holding , 9F.3d823,836 idea . 8 idea . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 see inagroupofmath methods. Justasonewouldexpect faire Google contendsthatthegroupings wouldbesoexp due tothe in astand-aloneclass). grouping pattern(oreventhattheybegroupedat all,foreachmethod couldhavebeenplaced Oracle isentirelycorrectthattherulesofJava languagedidnotrequirethatthesame placed itstrigonometric function(oranyother function)underaclassotherthanMathclass. did notinsistthatthesemethods begrouped togeth another method thatreturnslogarithmic values,andsoon.AsOraclenotes,therulesofJava a method thatreturnsacosine,anothermethod thatreturnsthelargeroftwonumbers, andyet same classandpackagescheme asinJava.Forexample, theMathclassesinbothsystems have group itsmethods inthesame wayasinJava,thatis,toorganizeitsAndroidmethods underthe three percentofsimilar code. This analysisisparalleltotheformethods. Thisnowaccountsforvirtuallyallofthe by copyright.Therefore,underthelaw,d the functionalitywouldbedifferent)—saveonlyforname, whichcannotbeclaimed methods, foranydesiredfunctionality,thedeclarationlinewill the rulesinsistonstrictsyntaxandpunctuationinlinesofcodethatdeclareaclass.Aswith are different. done —Googlehasviolatednocopyright,itbe specifications andnames. Therefore,atthemethod level—thewhereheavyliftingis to carryoutexactlythesame functionsofallmethods inquestion,usingexactlythesame method phrases cannotbecopyrighted. Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page36of41 doctrine.Forexample, themethods includedunderthe 9 Astothegroupingsofmethods withinaclass,Googleinvokesthe Even so,thesecondmajor copyrightquestioniswhetherGooglewasandremains freeto As forclasses,therulesoflanguagelikewiseinsistongivingnames toclassesand In sum, Googleandthepublicwereremain freetowritetheir own implementations name giventothemethod (ortothearguments), forunderthelaw,names andshort 9

* ected andcustomary astobepermissible underthe eclaration linecannotbeprotectedbycopyright. certainitems inthealcovefornuts,boltsandscrews 36 ing undisputedthatGoogle’simplementations Math classaretypicalofwhat onewouldexpectto er inanyparticularclass.Googlecouldhave always scenes afaire readthesame (otherwise doctrine.Thatis, scenes a United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 classified underthesame classes. not changethefactthatallof themethods intheJa sequences wouldtrackmethod-for-method andithasnotso classes. Norhasanywitnessorcounselsofaronthe shown intheirrespectivelistings(TX47.101,TX623.101) although allofthemethods intheJavaversioncanbe sequence ofmethods intheclassMathAndroidis into thedetailcodelistings,weseethatactualsequences scenes afaire contents aretypicalofsuchclassesand,onthisr hundreds ofclassesatissue. however, neithersidepresentedevidencefrom whichwecan in ahardwarestore,onewouldexpectthemethods ofthema organization resembles ataxonomy, itis even ifGooglewasfreetoreplicatethesame functionality. nothing intherulesofJavalanguagethatrequiredGooglereplicatesame groupings Dental Associationv.DeltaPlans over sixthousandmethods —isa“taxonomy” and,therefore,copyrightableunder overall system oforganizednames —covering37packages,withoversixhundredclasses, nevertheless acommand structure,asystem ormethod ofoperation—alonghierarchy operation. Yes,itiscreative.original.resembles ataxonomy. Butitis of commands arrangedin acreativetaxonomy doesnotchangeitscharacterasamethod of operation .regardlessoftheform ..”Thatasystem ormethod ofoperationhasthousands work ofauthorshipextendtoanyidea,procedure,process,system, method of and eachcallsintoactionapre-assignedfunction. the form of operationtheapplicationprogramming interface.Thecommands are(andmust be)in Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page37of41 11 10 The main answertothisargument isthatwhiletheoverallscheme of file name Oracle’s bestargument, therefore,isthatwhilenosinglename iscopyrightable,Java’s To repeat,Section102(b)statesthat“inno Theparenthesesindicatethat inputs/arguments may beincludedinthecommand. Thisisagoodplacetopointoutthatwhilethe . Therefore,itisimpossible tosayonthisrecordthat java.package.Class.method() ecord, thisorderrejectsGoogle’sglobalargument basedon also va versioncanbefoundsomewhere intheAndroidversion, different from thesequence inthesame classinJava, foundsomewhere intheAndroidversion,atleastas record. Oracledoesnot,howev acommand structureforasystem ormethod 37 groupings appeartobethesame, whenwedrilldown . TheCourthasnotcompared allsix-hundred-plus proven.Thisdetailedobservation, however,does ofmethods inthelistingsaredifferent.Thatis, th classtobein,say,atypicalmath class.Attrial, nowsaythatthesame istrueforalltheother 11 case doescopyrightprotectionforanoriginal

, 126F.3d977(7thCir.1997).Therewas 10

all oftheclassesandtheir er, contendthattheactual American United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the developersthemselves, notbyOracle. necessarily usedthecommand structureofnames atissue.Suchcodewasownedby format. Theseprograms called onallorsome ofthespecific37packagesatissueand Android arrived.Theseprograms necessarilyusedthejava.package.Class.method() command or method ofoperation.Surely,millions oflinescodehadbeenwritteninJavabefore receive copyrightprotection—patentprotec over sixthousandcommands tocarryoutpre-assignedfunctions.Forthatreason,itcannot method ofoperation. Oracle’s angstoveritillustrate thecharacterof thecommand structureasafunctional system or compatible.) Theimmediate pointisthis:fragmentation, imperfect interoperability, and as AndroidhasnotcarriedtheJavatrademark, andGooglehas notheldoutAndroidasfully the firstplacetoreplicatesome orallofthecommand structure.(Thisisespeciallysoinasmuch legitimate businessconsideration,itbegsthequestionwhetherornotalicensewas requiredin replicated has made much of thisproblem, attimes almost leavingtheimpression thatifonlyGooglehad which SunandOraclehavetriedtocurbviatheirlicensingprograms. Inthislitigation,Oracle interoperability leadstoa“fragmentation” —aBalkanizationof platforms, acircumstance 37 APIpackageswillrunonAndroidbutnotif a38thpackageisneeded.Such imperfect on theincompatible platforms. Forexample, Java-basedcodeusingthereplicatedpartsof interoperability among platforms. When thisoccurs,Java-basedapplicationsmay notrun preoccupation withwhatitcalls“fragmentation,” meaning theproblem ofhavingimperfect but nomore, takingcare,assaidbefore,toprovideitsownimplementations. specifications. system usingthesamenameswith“taxonomy”andfunctional Android, Googlewasrequiredtoprovidethesamejava.package.Class.method() command Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page38of41 Interoperability shedsfurther lightonthecharacterof thecommand structureasasystem That interoperabilityisattheheartof thecommand structure isillustratedbyOracle’s all 166JavaAPIpackages,Oraclewouldnothave sued. While fragmentation isa Googlereplicatedwhatwasnecessarytoachieveadegreeofinteroperability— * In orderforatleastsomeofthiscodetorunon tion perhaps—butnotcopyrightprotection. 38 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 by insurancecompanies anddentiststofacilitate billings.Bycontrast,herethetaxonomy is categories withEnglish-language descriptionscreatedbytheADA.This wasthentobeused The taxonomy theresubdividedtheuniverse ofalldentalproceduresintoanoutline numbered It wasnotasystem ofcommands, much less asystem ofcommands foracomputer language. 121 F.3d516(9thCir.1997),thetaxonomy in protectable bycopyrightinourcircuit, 126 F.3d977(7thCir.1997),isnotcontrolling. Assuming arguendothatataxonomy is but notalloftheJavaAPIpackagesinAndroid. copyright.” May 27,1999).Ourcourtofappealsheldthattheaccusedproduct“itselfinfringe[d]no tested. Connectix’sOpeningAppellateBriefat18,available1999WL 33623860,(9thCir. Playstation BIOS’s242functionsbecausethos to theSection102(b)analysis.In care towriteitsownimplementations). ContrarytoOracle,“full compatibility” isnotrelevant in Androidordertoaccommodate third-partysourcecoderelyingonthe37packages(taking implementations), thenGooglewasfreetoduplicatethecommand structureforthe37packages BIOS inordertorunthePlaystationgames ondesktops(takingcaretowriteitsown and extent ofthe37packages—which,afterall,isOracle’scopyrightclaim — when replicated,atleastallowsinteroperabilityof codeusingthereplicatedcommands. Tothe Here, thecommand structureforthe37packages(includinginheritancesandexceptionthrows), order toachieveinteroperabilitywerefunctionalaspectsnotcopyrightableunderSection102(b). Section 102(b).Bothdecisionsheldthatinterfaceprocedureswerenecessarytoduplicatein were deemed “functionalrequirements forcompatibility” andwerenotcopyrightableunder close analogies.Underthesetwodecisions,interfaceproceduresrequiredforinteroperability Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page39of41 Sony This explainswhy In thisregard,theNinthCircuitdecisionsin areanalogous.Putdifferently,ifsomeone couldduplicatetheinterfacesofSony Sony , 203F.3dat608n.11.ThisparallelsGoogle’sdecisiontoimplement some American DentalAssociationv.DeltaPlans Association * Sony , theaccusedproductimplemented only137ofthe see PracticeMgmt.Info.Corp.v.Am.Med.Ass’n e weretheonlyfunctionsinvokedbygames ADA 39 hadnothingtodowithcomputer programs. Sega and Sony , althoughnotonallfours,are , Sega , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 command structureforthe166 packagesand/oranysubpartthereof—eventhough it by copyright,theexclusive righttoanyandallpossibleimplementations ofthetaxonomy-like under themerger and names doctrines.Oraclemust resort,therefore,toclaiming thatitowns, Android lineswerenewfrom Googleandtheremaining threepercentwere freelyreplicable 166 Javapackages,129werenotviolatedinany way.Ofthe37accused,97percentof and circumstances ofeachcase.Thecircumstances there arenotthecircumstances here. extent towhichthestructure,sequenceandorganization wasprotectabledependedonthefacts of appealsmerely saidnoclearerrorhadoccurred.Again,theappellateopinionstatedthat not describedintheappellatedecision.)Onan copyright protection.(Thestructure,sequence sequence andorganizationofthecopyrightedprogram, onthefactstherefound,deserved of acopyright.Onmotion forpreliminary inj that allstructure,sequenceandorganizationincomputer programs arewithintheprotection Sys. always subjecttoexclusionofunprotectableelements. may not)qualifyasaprotectableelement depending onthe“particularfactsofeachcase”and form ofinstructionsforuse. package, classandmethod, whatinputstheyneed,andoutputsreturn—theclassic documentation andembedded comments thatweremuch litigatedattrial.Theydescribeevery By contrast,theAPIatissueheredoescome withinstructionsforuse,namely, the there atissuehadnoinstructionsforuse,among otherreasons,itwasheldnottobeasystem. Section 102(b)hadtocome with“instructionsforuse.” 126F.3dat980.Becausethetaxonomy movies involveno“system” or“method ofoperation”—scriptsareentirelycreative. similar reason,Oracle’sanalogytostealingtheplot composed entirelyofasystem ofcommands tocarry outspecifiedcomputer functions.Fora Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page40of41 , 886F.2d1173,1175(9thCir.1989).ContrarytoOracle, In closing,itisimportant tostepbackandtakeinthebreadthofOracle’sclaim. Ofthe In ourcircuit,thestructure,sequenceandorganizationofacomputer program may (or In ADA , JudgeFrankEasterbrook(writingforthepanel)suggestedthata“system” under and organizationfeaturesfoundprotectablewere 40 unction, thedistrictcourtfoundthatstructure, appeal from thepreliminary injunction,ourcourt andcharacterfrom amovie isinapt,for Johnson Controlsv.PhoenixControl Johnson Controls didnothold

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 is Google’s copyingofthe37APIpackages,includingtheirstructure,sequenceandorganization Google werefreeforalltouseundertheCopyri stolen. Rather,itholdsonthespecificfactsofthiscase,particularelements replicatedby It doesnotholdthatthestructure,sequencea No holdinghaseverendorsedsuchasweepingproposition. from writingtheirowndifferentversionsto to copyrightoneversionofcodecarryoutasystem ofcommands andtherebybarallothers copyrighted onlyoneimplementation. Toaccep ae: a 1 02 Dated: May31,2012. is are Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202Filed05/31/12Page41of41 D D G ENIED AS ISMISSED RANTED This orderdoesnotholdthatJavaAPIpackagesarefreeforalltousewithoutlicense. IT ISSOORDERED. . Totheextentstatedherein,Google’sRule50motions regardingcopyrightability M (Dkt.Nos.984,1007).Google’smotion fo OOT (Dkt.No.1105). CONCLUSION carry outallorpartofthesame commands. nd organizationofallcomputer programs may be 41 ght Act.Therefore,Oracle’sclaim basedon t Oracle’sclaim wouldbetoallowanyone U W NITED ILLIAM r anewtrialoncopyrightinfringement S TATES A LSUP D ISTRICT J UDGE