I don't believe so, the brief covers this claim: > Thus, this case should not be confused with the recent litigation over the Java computer language. As observ

I don't believe so, the brief covers this claim: > Thus, this case should not be confused with the recent litigation over the Java computer language. As observed by the Federal Circuit, that case “was not a situation where Oracle was selecting among preordained names and phrases to create its packages.” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) cert den’d 135 S. Ct. 2887 (U.S. 2015). Here, speakers of Klingon are limited to preordained words and syntax. (Page 12) This is called the 'doctrine of merger', I believe (IANAL): > Furthermore, the doctrine of merger provides that if an idea “can only be expressed in a limited number of ways,” those means of expression “cannot be protected, lest one author own the idea itself.” (page 9) Since Klingon words are not an exact transliteration of english words (not a 1-to-1 translation), you can't express the same ideas in multiple ways; so if the language were to be copyrightable, only the person who owns the languages could express those ideas, which seems patently silly. (My legal analysis isn't; so I'm probably off on exactly why; that's why I spent most of my time quoting from the brief).