6 ms·

Copyright protects expressive works in tangible form. So, a computer language can't be protected because it is an abstraction. But the source code for any imple

by grellas 14y ago

Copyright protects expressive works in tangible form. So, a computer language can't be protected because it is an abstraction. But the source code for any implementation of that language can. Here, Oracle is not claiming a copyright in the Java language, nor is it claiming that Google copied any source code (except very insubstantial elements). Oracle claims that the API is protected by copyright and that Google infringed various API elements by copying the structure, etc. in spite of its having done so through a clean-room development. Therefore, Oracle's ultimate copyright claims in the case all turn on its assertion that it can sue upon only a a subset (the API pieces) of the overall copyrighted work (Java) and not the whole work. The other important piece of the analysis is as follows: copyright protection applies automatically as a work is created and takes a tangible means of expression; however, you cannot sue for infringement of a copyright work unless it is registered as a federal copyright with the Copyright Office. The Google motion contends that Oracle registered the entire work (Java) and not any subset of that work. Oracle claims it was registered as a "collective work" and that this gives it the right to sue on a component part of the work only. In its motion, Google says that the work was not registered as a collective work and that Oracle therefore can't - as a matter of law - sue over a component piece only. The motion turns on technical issues but they are ones that would seem to be verifiable one way or the other and thereafter tested under the legal standards just summarized. If the Java registration fails to meet the test, the Oracle loses on its copyright claims as a matter of law (meaning the judge tosses it and it doesn't even go to the jury). This is truly a bombshell and appears to have caught the Oracle attorneys completely off stride. We will see what happens.

jamroom 14y ago
I'm probably misunderstanding this, but wouldn't this open the door to allowing someone to copy just portions of a copyrighted work if the work is only copyrighted as a "whole"? Would this require a company (or individual) to copyright every sub system in a larger system? I'm certain I am overlooking something as that seems an unreasonable burden.
- cheald 14y ago
  The issue here is that Oracle can't assert copyright on the individual pieces because they didn't write them. They were contributed by others. Oracles only copyright is on the work as a whole. To that end, you could go ahead and copy pieces of the copyrighted work, but you would still be subject to lawsuits by the people that wrote the original individual piece. You just wouldn't be subject to lawsuits by Oracle. It's still infringement, but Oracle isn't the infringed party.
  - jamroom 14y ago
    Thank you - that makes sense. I must have glossed over the part that the 37 API's in question were not copyrighted by Oracle. Thanks!
    - telcodud 14y ago
      Actually, 37 packages are in question. See https://twitter.com/#!/CalebGarling/status/195596382982258691 https://twitter.com/#!/CalebGarling/status/19559638298225869...
  - seldo 14y ago
    I was unaware that the APIs were contributed by others. Do you have any idea who might be some of the (theoretical) copyright holders of the individual APIs?
    - foamdino 14y ago
      There is significant code in the Java libraries that was first written by people outside of Sun/Oracle. Back in the Java5 days some APIs provided by Java were simply javax.something wrapped around org.apache code.
  - bo1024 14y ago
    But that would seem to imply that, for example, the RIAA can't sue someone for downloading half a song (or all but the last 5 seconds).
Scorponok 14y ago
Do you have to register it with the copyright office as soon as you create it, or could you create it, register it 10 years later, then immediately sue someone who copied it?
- sp332 14y ago
  US law generally doesn't allow actions to be made illegal after the fact (ex post facto). So no, the act must be illegal when it was committed.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    In this case, though, copyright infringement is already in principle illegal whether a work has been registered or not; the registration requirement is just a procedural requirement that bars collecting damages, not something that makes the action legal or illegal. However U.S. copyright law does have a statutory limit on how retroactive registrations can be. If you file a registration within 90 days of first publication, the registration is retroactive to the date of publication; but if you file more than 90 days from publication, registration is only effective from the date of registration. Fwiw, even with unregistered works you have some options available to you, just not damages. For example, you can file a DMCA takedown notice.
    - HNatWORK 14y ago
      If you file a DMCA notice and the infringing party files a DMCA counter-notice, would you have to register the copyright before you could sue for infringement?
      - _delirium 14y ago
        I believe the answer is yes, you need to first register before filing suit. If the offending work continues to be published, you can register and then sue. An exception is foreign works, whose owners can file a suit without first registering, since treaty obligations don't allow the U.S. to subject foreign holders to "formalities". However foreign holders are limited to recovering "actual damages" in such suits, and need to register to be eligible for per-copy statutory damages.
rowanseymour 14y ago
> you cannot sue for infringement of a copyright work unless it is registered as a federal copyright with the Copyright Office. I'm having a hard time understanding what it means to have automatic copyright when a work is created... but you can't sue for infringement. What kind of implicit protection does your work have if you can't take such action?
- grellas 14y ago
  The issue is strictly a procedural one. For example, you get the copyright as soon as you author a work and put it in a tangible form of expression (let's say it is source code for a product you have developed). Then, you go about your business for several years using your copyrighted work internally and making sure it is subject to trade secret protections as well. If, after that time, someone lifts the code illegally and uses it to create a competitive product, you have a claim for copyright infringement, among other things. But you cannot file that claim in federal court unless and until you have registered the copyrighted work as a prerequisite to maintaining the suit. Many U.S. jurisdictions say you cannot even sue at all on the copyright claims until the copyright has finally been registered. In California, the Ninth Circuit holds that you can file the federal suit once you have applied for the copyright registration, even though it is not complete. Therefore, once you create a qualifying work, you have a fully perfected copyright immediately. You just can't sue on that interest for infringement until you have taken the additional step of registering the copyright. You can, however, register at any time prior to filing an infringement action, even if that is many years after the copyright was created. For enforcement purposes, then, it is basically a 2-step process. Oracle's problem is that it is at the tail end of a trial and has no ability at this point to do anything about registration. If Google is right concerning the motion, Oracle will be out of options on its copyright claims.
  - vinutheraj 14y ago
    So can't Oracle now go and register and start a new case ?
  - _delirium 14y ago
    On the last point, if the claim is dismissed due to the lack of registration, can't they just register and re-file the claim? Afaik dismissals of that sort are without prejudice. Is the concern the expense/delay that having to file over again would cause?
ghoul2 14y ago
Not entirely correct, its slightly more complicated than that. Say you write an short story. And you file a copyright for it with the copyright office. Now, an anthology editor reads your story and wishes to include it in a collection of short stories that he is preparing. It contains, say 20 other short stories as well. This anthology is a "collective work". The anthology editor did not have copyright over the individual stories - he probably only has certain royalty arrangement with each individual author. But the editor can certainly copyright the layout of the anthology. Maybe he put together a brief intro for each story, maybe he ordered them in some artistic fashion based on progression of ideas in the stories etc. This would be a "collective work" copyright. Under a collective work copyright, the editor could sue another editor for producing a substantially duplicate anthology for copyright infringement. But if another magazine published just one of the stories by itself, the editor could not claim copyright infringement. So in the case of oracle, oracle could have copyright the design of each API individally, and then also copyrighted the entire collection of APIs, thus copyrighting the "collective work" representing the entire language API. But they didn't. They only copyrighted the entire collection as a single work. Thus they (supposedly) cannot claim copyright infrigement when only a small part of it might have been copied by google. (I am not quite certain here). What oracle is claiming instead - is that they copyrighted Java as a "collective work". which would allow them to claim copyright over the design of the entire API design, rather than just the source code of API implementation. They claim that this design is their creative input. But in this case, then they would also have needed to copyright individual APIs if they wanted to sue for infringement in those individual APIs. Otherwise they could only sue if someone someone copied the entire (or a very substantial part of) the design. They did not copyright those individual pieces. Back to the analogy: According to groklaw, Oracle actually copyrighted the entire anthology as an original single work. Oracle claims it copyrighted the anthology as a "collective work" - this is under question. Also, if it DID actually copyright the anthology as a collective work, it seems they did not file copyrights for the individual stories. As a collective work, thus, they can sue for infringement if another anthology is published with substantially the same layout, copying the creativity that went into putting the anthology together. But, if someone copied just one of the stories, they might not be able to sue for infringement as that would not duplicate the creative work of the anthology itself. On the other hand, if they claim to have copyright the entire anthology as a single work, then if someone copies just the titles of each story and publishes another anthology with different content but same titles for each story, it might not count as infringement. At least thats my understanding.
camiller 14y ago
I believe that while you cannot sue for monetary damages for infringement of a copyright work unless it is registered, you can sue to halt the infringement and have any infringing work seized/destroyed etc. Otherwise the first part where you say "copyright protection applies automatically as a work is created..." would have no real meaning.

by grellas 14y ago

jamroom 14y ago

I'm probably misunderstanding this, but wouldn't this open the door to allowing someone to copy just portions of a copyrighted work if the work is only copyrighted as a "whole"? Would this require a company (or individual) to copyright every sub system in a larger system? I'm certain I am overlooking something as that seems an unreasonable burden.

cheald 14y ago
The issue here is that Oracle can't assert copyright on the individual pieces because they didn't write them. They were contributed by others. Oracles only copyright is on the work as a whole. To that end, you could go ahead and copy pieces of the copyrighted work, but you would still be subject to lawsuits by the people that wrote the original individual piece. You just wouldn't be subject to lawsuits by Oracle. It's still infringement, but Oracle isn't the infringed party.
- jamroom 14y ago
  Thank you - that makes sense. I must have glossed over the part that the 37 API's in question were not copyrighted by Oracle. Thanks!
  - telcodud 14y ago
    Actually, 37 packages are in question. See https://twitter.com/#!/CalebGarling/status/195596382982258691 https://twitter.com/#!/CalebGarling/status/19559638298225869...
- seldo 14y ago
  I was unaware that the APIs were contributed by others. Do you have any idea who might be some of the (theoretical) copyright holders of the individual APIs?
  - foamdino 14y ago
    There is significant code in the Java libraries that was first written by people outside of Sun/Oracle. Back in the Java5 days some APIs provided by Java were simply javax.something wrapped around org.apache code.
- bo1024 14y ago
  But that would seem to imply that, for example, the RIAA can't sue someone for downloading half a song (or all but the last 5 seconds).

Scorponok 14y ago

Do you have to register it with the copyright office as soon as you create it, or could you create it, register it 10 years later, then immediately sue someone who copied it?

sp332 14y ago
US law generally doesn't allow actions to be made illegal after the fact (ex post facto). So no, the act must be illegal when it was committed.
- _delirium 14y ago
  In this case, though, copyright infringement is already in principle illegal whether a work has been registered or not; the registration requirement is just a procedural requirement that bars collecting damages, not something that makes the action legal or illegal. However U.S. copyright law does have a statutory limit on how retroactive registrations can be. If you file a registration within 90 days of first publication, the registration is retroactive to the date of publication; but if you file more than 90 days from publication, registration is only effective from the date of registration. Fwiw, even with unregistered works you have some options available to you, just not damages. For example, you can file a DMCA takedown notice.
  - HNatWORK 14y ago
    If you file a DMCA notice and the infringing party files a DMCA counter-notice, would you have to register the copyright before you could sue for infringement?
    - _delirium 14y ago
      I believe the answer is yes, you need to first register before filing suit. If the offending work continues to be published, you can register and then sue. An exception is foreign works, whose owners can file a suit without first registering, since treaty obligations don't allow the U.S. to subject foreign holders to "formalities". However foreign holders are limited to recovering "actual damages" in such suits, and need to register to be eligible for per-copy statutory damages.

rowanseymour 14y ago

> you cannot sue for infringement of a copyright work unless it is registered as a federal copyright with the Copyright Office. I'm having a hard time understanding what it means to have automatic copyright when a work is created... but you can't sue for infringement. What kind of implicit protection does your work have if you can't take such action?

grellas 14y ago
The issue is strictly a procedural one. For example, you get the copyright as soon as you author a work and put it in a tangible form of expression (let's say it is source code for a product you have developed). Then, you go about your business for several years using your copyrighted work internally and making sure it is subject to trade secret protections as well. If, after that time, someone lifts the code illegally and uses it to create a competitive product, you have a claim for copyright infringement, among other things. But you cannot file that claim in federal court unless and until you have registered the copyrighted work as a prerequisite to maintaining the suit. Many U.S. jurisdictions say you cannot even sue at all on the copyright claims until the copyright has finally been registered. In California, the Ninth Circuit holds that you can file the federal suit once you have applied for the copyright registration, even though it is not complete. Therefore, once you create a qualifying work, you have a fully perfected copyright immediately. You just can't sue on that interest for infringement until you have taken the additional step of registering the copyright. You can, however, register at any time prior to filing an infringement action, even if that is many years after the copyright was created. For enforcement purposes, then, it is basically a 2-step process. Oracle's problem is that it is at the tail end of a trial and has no ability at this point to do anything about registration. If Google is right concerning the motion, Oracle will be out of options on its copyright claims.
- vinutheraj 14y ago
  So can't Oracle now go and register and start a new case ?
- _delirium 14y ago
  On the last point, if the claim is dismissed due to the lack of registration, can't they just register and re-file the claim? Afaik dismissals of that sort are without prejudice. Is the concern the expense/delay that having to file over again would cause?

ghoul2 14y ago

Not entirely correct, its slightly more complicated than that. Say you write an short story. And you file a copyright for it with the copyright office. Now, an anthology editor reads your story and wishes to include it in a collection of short stories that he is preparing. It contains, say 20 other short stories as well. This anthology is a "collective work". The anthology editor did not have copyright over the individual stories - he probably only has certain royalty arrangement with each individual author. But the editor can certainly copyright the layout of the anthology. Maybe he put together a brief intro for each story, maybe he ordered them in some artistic fashion based on progression of ideas in the stories etc. This would be a "collective work" copyright. Under a collective work copyright, the editor could sue another editor for producing a substantially duplicate anthology for copyright infringement. But if another magazine published just one of the stories by itself, the editor could not claim copyright infringement. So in the case of oracle, oracle could have copyright the design of each API individally, and then also copyrighted the entire collection of APIs, thus copyrighting the "collective work" representing the entire language API. But they didn't. They only copyrighted the entire collection as a single work. Thus they (supposedly) cannot claim copyright infrigement when only a small part of it might have been copied by google. (I am not quite certain here). What oracle is claiming instead - is that they copyrighted Java as a "collective work". which would allow them to claim copyright over the design of the entire API design, rather than just the source code of API implementation. They claim that this design is their creative input. But in this case, then they would also have needed to copyright individual APIs if they wanted to sue for infringement in those individual APIs. Otherwise they could only sue if someone someone copied the entire (or a very substantial part of) the design. They did not copyright those individual pieces. Back to the analogy: According to groklaw, Oracle actually copyrighted the entire anthology as an original single work. Oracle claims it copyrighted the anthology as a "collective work" - this is under question. Also, if it DID actually copyright the anthology as a collective work, it seems they did not file copyrights for the individual stories. As a collective work, thus, they can sue for infringement if another anthology is published with substantially the same layout, copying the creativity that went into putting the anthology together. But, if someone copied just one of the stories, they might not be able to sue for infringement as that would not duplicate the creative work of the anthology itself. On the other hand, if they claim to have copyright the entire anthology as a single work, then if someone copies just the titles of each story and publishes another anthology with different content but same titles for each story, it might not count as infringement. At least thats my understanding.

camiller 14y ago

I believe that while you cannot sue for monetary damages for infringement of a copyright work unless it is registered, you can sue to halt the infringement and have any infringing work seized/destroyed etc. Otherwise the first part where you say "copyright protection applies automatically as a work is created..." would have no real meaning.