Lexplug logoLexplug

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
750 F.3d 1339 (2014)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of a computer program's Application Programming Interface (API) are eligible for copyright protection as they constitute creative expression, which is not defeated by their functional purpose under § 102(b) of the Copyright Act.


Facts:

  • Sun Microsystems, Inc. (later acquired by Oracle) developed the Java programming platform, which included pre-written programs organized into groups called API packages.
  • These API packages consist of 'declaring code' (which identifies a function) and 'implementing code' (which executes the function).
  • Sun/Oracle offered various licenses for others to use its Java platform and API packages.
  • Google Inc. acquired Android, Inc. in 2005 to develop a mobile operating system.
  • Google and Sun entered into negotiations for Google to license the Java platform for its Android system, but the negotiations failed.
  • The key disagreement was Google's refusal to make its platform compatible with the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), which would violate Java's 'write once, run anywhere' principle.
  • After negotiations failed, Google developed Android using the Java programming language but created its own virtual machine.
  • To make it easier for Java programmers to develop for Android, Google copied the declaring code and the overall structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of 37 Java API packages verbatim, while writing its own implementing code for those packages.

Procedural Posture:

  • Oracle America, Inc. sued Google Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for copyright and patent infringement.
  • The parties agreed that the judge would decide the issue of copyrightability, while the jury would decide infringement and fair use.
  • The jury found that Google had infringed Oracle’s copyrights in the 37 API packages but was deadlocked on Google’s fair use defense.
  • Following the jury verdict, the district court judge issued a ruling on copyrightability.
  • The district court held that the declaring code and the SSO of the Java API packages were not eligible for copyright protection.
  • The district court entered a final judgment in favor of Google on the copyright claims related to the 37 API packages.
  • Oracle, the plaintiff, appealed the district court's judgment on copyrightability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Copyright Act protect a software program's declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of its Application Programming Interface (API) packages?


Opinions:

Majority - O’Malley, Circuit Judge

Yes, the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of the 37 Java API packages are entitled to copyright protection. The district court erred by finding that the merger doctrine, the short phrases doctrine, and the method of operation exception under § 102(b) precluded copyrightability. First, the merger doctrine does not apply because the focus is on the creative options available to the original author (Sun/Oracle), not the copier (Google), and Sun had unlimited ways to write the declaring code and structure the APIs. Second, while individual names and short phrases are not copyrightable, their creative selection and arrangement over thousands of lines of code is a protectable compilation. Third, the district court's reliance on Lotus v. Borland to classify the SSO as an unprotectable 'method of operation' was misplaced; computer programs are inherently functional, but this does not strip their creative expression of copyright protection. Finally, Google's desire for 'interoperability' to attract Java programmers is a consideration for fair use, not the threshold question of copyrightability.



Analysis:

This decision significantly strengthened copyright protection for software, particularly for the structure and organization of APIs, treating them as protectable creative expression akin to a literary taxonomy. By rejecting a broad interpretation of the 'method of operation' exclusion under § 102(b), the court created a circuit split with the First Circuit's influential Lotus v. Borland decision. This ruling established that a competitor's desire for platform compatibility or to leverage an existing developer community does not negate the copyrightability of the original work, shifting such arguments to the fair use defense. The case set a major precedent that impacts software development, especially for those creating platforms intended to be compatible with existing industry standards.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (2014)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"