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