Oracle America, Inc. v. Google

Citation
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 810 F.Supp.2d 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

Factual Background
Oracle accuses Google of infringing some of Oracle’s Java-related copyrights in portions of Google’s Android software program. These specific accusations are regarding 12 code files and 37 specifications for application programming interface packages. The Java technology and the basics of object-oriented programming were explained in the claim construction order. An overview of application programming interfaces and their role in Java and Android are as follows.

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)
An API allows software programs to communicate with each other. It is a set of definitions controlling how the services of a particular program can be summoned, including what types of input the program must be given and what kind of output will be returned.

APIs are usually made of “methods,” or “functions,” which are software programs that perform particular services. Methods must be defined before usage, by stating its name and describing its argument(s) and return(s) according to syntax conventions. Once a method has been declared, it can be documented and implemented. Documentation is not a code; it is a reference item providing programmers with information about the method, its requirements, and its use. Implementation is a code that actually tells the computer how to carry out the method. Multiple implementations are likely for a given method.

Java and Android
Java and Android are both complex software platforms with several components. Java programming has been made freely available for use by anyone without charge; both sides agree on this. Oracle alleges that other aspects of the Java platform, such as the virtual machine and class libraries, however, are protected by patents and copyrights.

The Android platform uses the Java programming language, therefore allowing software developers who already use the Java language to continue using the same language to write programs for Android. Opposite to Java, the Android platform uses the Dalvik virtual machine instead of the Java virtual machine, provides Android class libraries, and has other non-Java features. While the Java platform has been used primarily on desktop computers, it has also been used on cell phones and other mobile computing devices. Android, however, was designed for specific usage on mobile devices. Java and Android are competitors in the market for mobile computing software.

Oracles alleges that Android is an unauthorized and incompatible Java implementation. Some programs written for the Java platform will not run properly on the Android platform, even though both use the Java language. Some programs written for the Android platform will not run properly on the Java platform, although they are written in the Java language. Oracle alleges that this so-called breakup weakens Oracle by decreasing Java’s appeal to software developers.

Trial Court Proceedings
Google moved for summary judgment on the copyright infringement claim. With one exception, the motion was denied.

Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Copyright protection exists in “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” To succeed in a copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must show that it owns the copyright and that the defendant copied protected elements of the work. Only expressive elements that are “original” are protected. In this regard, Google advances many arguments as to why Oracle supposedly cannot prove all or part of its copyright infringement claim. Google is entitled to summary judgment only on one issue.

The Code Files
Regarding Oracle’s 12 code files comprising its software platform, Google argues that its alleged copying was de minimis, meaning so meager and fragmentary that the average audience would not recognize the copying.

The parties disagree over what constitutes the plaintiff’s work as a whole. Google argues that its alleged copying should be compared to the entire Java platform, which Oracle registered as a single work. Oracle, however, states that each of the 12 code files at issue is a separate work for purposes of this analysis. Google has shown that Oracle’s Java platform is the proper basis for comparison and sites two provisions of the copyright regulations, but neither one supports Google’s position. Therefore, on the present record, Google has not shown that the Java platform as a whole is the work to which Google’s alleged copying should be compared.

The API Package Specifications
Regarding the 37 API package specifications, Google argues that the sole connections between the accused works and the asserted works are elements that are not subject to copyright protection. It does not state which elements it believes are similar. It instead presents a range of theories why various categories of specification elements do not constitute copyright protection. With one exception, this broad categorical approach fails. Its other API package specifications also fail to earn summary judgment for Google.

Names
Names are not subject to copyright.

Google argues that the names of Oracle’s Java language, API files, packages, classes, and methods are not protectable as a matter of law. On the other hand, Oracle argues that it is entitled to protection because the specifications are original – but this is not the case.

Scenes a Faire and the Merger Doctrine
“When certain commonplace expressions are indispensable and naturally associated with the treatment of a given idea, those expressions are treated like ideas and therefore not protected by copyright.” The merger doctrine states that courts will not protect a copyrighted work from infringement if the idea behind the work can be expressed in only one way, unless there is a monopoly on the underlying idea.

Google is not specific in explaining “API declarations,” which is fatal. The court states that Google should have provided evidence and argument supporting its views as to that method declaration. Thus, API package specifications are protectable under the scenes a faire or merger doctrines.

Methods of Operation
Copyright protection for an original work of authorship never extends to any method of operation of work. Google does not use the term API consistently in the relevant portions of its briefs, and therefore is not clear what it is attempting to characterize as a method of operation.

The court finds that the API package specifications at issue are not “methods of operation.”

Degree of Similarity
Where the range of protectable and unauthorized expression is narrow, as is the case here, the appropriate standard is virtual identify or substantial similarity. The court here agrees with Google that the names of the various items appearing in the disputed API package specifications are not protected by copyright. However, Google’s justification for applying the virtual identity standard fails because it has not proven that a substantial portion of the specifications is unprotected.

Google failed to earn summary judgment of no copying under the virtual identity (or substantial similarity) standards.

Fair Use
In deciding whether the use made of a work is a fair use, several factors are considered. While Google argues that its alleged use of elements from the Java API package specifications in its Android API specifications was fair, in fact no finding of fair use can be made on the summary judgment record.

The names of the various items appearing in the disputed API package specifications are not protected by copyright.

Indirect Infringement
Since Google is not entitled to summary judgment on direct infringement, neither is it entitled to summary judgment on direct infringement.

Holding
The court held the following: (1) that each of 12 code files comprising software developer's software platform was a separate work for purposes of infringement analysis; (2) names of several items appearing in the API package specifications were not copyright protectable; (3) Google failed to show that the API package specifications were not protectable under the scenes a faire or merger doctrines; (4) the API package specifications were protected methods of operation; (5) substantial similarity, rather than virtual identity, standard of copying is appropriate; (6) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the parties' API package specifications were sufficiently similar to show copying; and (7) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether alleged infringer's alleged use of elements from developer's API package specifications was fair.