decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Google Files Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment on Oracle's Copyright Claim - Updated 2Xs: Judge says not yet
Wednesday, February 16 2011 @ 11:13 PM EST

Google has sent a letter [PDF] to Judge William Alsup, asking leave to file a motion for summary judgment on Count VIII of Oracle's Amended Complaint in Oracle v. Google.

Count VIII is the one about copyright infringement. So regardless of how the judge rules, we get to see Google's position, which if I translate into non-legalese would be: "What we did isn't actionable, being covered by fair use or the files are so few their use is de minimis or they are not copyrightable." I have done the letter as text for you.

If you recall, the judge issued an order [PDF] last week saying neither party could file such a motion without permission, because he's really busy with a criminal case. He told them to file a summary of what they'd like to file in a motion in a request to him, and the other side can respond if they wish to oppose two business days later, so that's what will happen next, I expect, that Oracle will oppose letting Google file the motion. Then the judge will decide if Google can file the motion or not.

Update: Google has also filed with the USPTO, asking for an ex parte reexamination of four of Oracle's patents.

Here's the docket entry:

02/16/2011 - 88 - MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Google Inc.. (Baber, Bruce) (Filed on 2/16/2011) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

The API files Oracle identified, Google says, are unprotectable:
Oracle's allegations are that Android "copies" portions of certain basic, functional Java Application Programming Interfaces or "APIs," which are interfaces that consist of common names of Java programming language constructs, methods of operations, commands and other functional elements. The use in Android of such common and unprotectable elements is purely functional, namely, to enable applications written in the Java programming language to run on Android devices and to enable programs created by developers for the Android platform to interoperate with existing third party, Java-based software and tools. Such use cannot constitute copyright infringement as a matter of law.
If any of it were protectable, it's covered by fair use, Google adds. Finally, Google says the 12 files at issue, out of nearly 100,000, "comprise in the aggregate less than one percent of Android and a similarly small percentage of the Works" and the use is therefore de minimis and not actionable. You can't copyright in software "ideas, concepts, processes, procedures and methods of operations; words, names and short phrases; functional elements; and elements that are in common use, as to which there are only a limited number of means of expression or the expression is dictated by technical or compatibility requirements, that are in the public domain".

As for the "only two files allegedly containing 'copied' code," Google says they were "created by Google and provided to Oracle for use in open source releases of Java". Apparently, at the hearing on February 9, Oracle stated that it isn't claiming copyright on the Java language. Duh.

Here's the heart of Count VIII from Oracle's amended complaint [PDF], and you can read it in full as text in the article linked to above, paragraphs 37-47 of the document:

39. Google’s Android infringes Oracle America’s copyrights in the Java platform, and Google infringes Oracle’s exclusive rights under copyright by reproducing and distributing Android and inducing others to reproduce and distribute Android or the code contained within it.

40. Android includes infringing class libraries and documentation. Approximately one third of Android’s Application Programmer Interface (API) packages (available at http://developer.android.com/reference/packages.html) are derivative of Oracle America’s 19 copyrighted Java API packages (available at http://download-llnw.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/- 20 docs/api/ and http://download-llnw.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/) and corresponding documents. The infringed elements of Oracle America’s copyrighted work include Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and the content and organization of Java’s documentation. Examples of this copying are illustrated in Exhibit I to this complaint. In at least several instances, Android computer program code also was directly copied from copyrighted Oracle America code. For example, as may be readily seen in Exhibit J, the source code in Android’s “PolicyNodeImpl.java” class is nearly identical to “PolicyNodeImpl.java” in Oracle America’s Java, not just in name, but in the source code on a line-for-line basis.

41. Google has distributed Android to many companies interested in the mobile device market, including the members of the Open Handset Alliance, with the understanding and intention that those companies would distribute Android to developers and end-users, all with the purpose of encouraging and promoting the creation and execution of Android software applications. Users of Android must copy and use infringing Java class libraries, or works derived therefrom, to manufacture and use functioning Android devices, in violation of Oracle’s copyrights. Such use is not licensed. Google has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to copy and distribute infringing works.

I can't predict how the judge will rule, but I am certainly not a bit surprised to see this motion. And if you are a regular reader of Groklaw, you're probably not surprised that I'm not surprised.

Update: Oracle filed a reply and the judge has ruled, saying Google can't file now for summary judgment, but it can later after discovery has progressed:

02/18/2011 - 89 - RESPONSE (re 88 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment ) filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 2/18/2011) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/18/2011 90 - ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION by Judge Alsup denying 88 Motion for Leave to File (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2011) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

Here's the judge's position:

Pursuant to the order regarding motion practice (Dkt. No. 86), defendant Google Inc. requests leave to file an early motion for summary judgment. The proposed motion would target the copyright claim for relief (Count VIII) in Oracle America, Inc.’s amended complaint. Plaintiff Oracle opposes Google’s request on the grounds that the proposed summary judgment motion “is neither ripe nor well-taken.” Having considered both parties’ submissions, this order finds that good cause has not been shown to engage in a summary judgment battle at this time. Google’s request is DENIED without prejudice to renewal after a more complete evidentiary record has been developed through discovery.

Here's the letter as text:

********************************

[King & Spalding letterhead]

February 16, 2011

The Honorable William Alsup
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
[address]

Re: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-3561 WHA

Dear Judge Alsup:

In accordance with Your Honor's February 9 Order, we respectfully request on behalf of Google leave to file a motion for summary judgment on Count VIII of plaintiff Oracle's Amended Complaint. Count VIII alleges that Google's Android -- an open source software platform whose source code has been publicly available since 2008 -- infringes copyrights owned by Oracle in two works, namely versions 1.4 and 5 of the "Java platform" as a "bundle of related programs, specifications, reference implementations, and developer tools and resources that allow a user to deploy applications written in the Java programming language on servers, desktops, mobile devices, and other devices." (Am. Comp. ¶ 9) (emphasis added).

In response to Google's interrogatory asking Oracle to identify the factual bases for this claim, Oracle has identified fifty-one "Android API package specifications" and/or the Android code implementing them that Oracle contends are "derived from or substantially similar to Oracle's copyrighted Java API package specifications." Oracle has identified only twelve files -- out of the nearly one hundred thousand files that comprise Android -- that contain any materials (code or comments) that Oracle claims have been copied from Oracle's Works.

Under well-established principles of copyright law, there can be no copyright infringement unless the accused work, compared to the plaintiff's work in its entirety, is

The Honorable William Alsup
February 16, 2011

substantially similar to -- or, if the range of any protectable elements is narrow (as here), virtually identical to -- protectable portions of the plaintiff's work. See, e.g., Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994), cert denied, 513 U.S. 1183 (1995). The court must exclude from comparison of the works any elements that are not protected by copyright, and, in this case, need only evaluate the elements Oracle has identified as allegedly infringing. See, e.g., MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng'g Co., 89 F.3d 1548, 1555 (11th Cir. 1996).

Such unprotectable elements in the case of computer software works include ideas, concepts, processes, procedures and methods of operations; words, names and short phrases; functional elements; and elements that are in common use, as to which there are only a limited number of means of expression or the expression is dictated by technical or compatibility requirements, that are in the public domain ( see, e.g., http://g.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest/ (materials identified by Oracle as infringing in fact created by a third party and released into the public domain)), or as to which Oracle cannot claim copyright protection. See, e.g., http://markmail.org/thread/xwyxemce75vvz33h (the only two files allegedly containing "copied" code were created by Google and provided to Oracle for use in open source releases of Java).

Oracle has now acknowledged (2/9/2011 Transcript at 8) that it makes no claim of infringement of the Java programming language itself, which has for many years been in widespread use by programmers -- over 6.5 million of them, by Oracle's estimate. (Am. Compl.¶ 9). Oracle's allegations are that Android "copies" portions of certain basic, functional Java Application Programming Interfaces or "APIs," which are interfaces that consist of common names of Java programming language constructs, methods of operations, commands and other functional elements. The use in Android of such common and unprotectable elements is purely functional, namely, to enable applications written in the Java programming language to run on

2

The Honorable William Alsup
February 16, 2011

Android devices and to enable programs created by developers for the Android platform to interoperate with existing third party, Java-based software and tools. Such use cannot constitute copyright infringement as a matter of law. See, e.g., Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), aff'd, 516 U.S. 233 (1996) (affirming summary judgment).

To the extent that any protectable elements of the Works are used in Android, such use would also qualify as a fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. The Works are technical works subject to limited copyright protection, and Oracle has only identified a very small portion of the Works as allegedly being copied. Android's use of those portions is for functional technical reasons, is needed for interoperability, and is transformative, resulting in a new and significantly different work. See, e.g., Sony Computer Ent., Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003)(summary judgment); Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 896 F. Supp. 1050, 1055-56 (D. Colo. 1995), aff'd, 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding interfaces to be unprotectable and/or their use to be fair use).

Finally, the portions of Android as to which Oracle alleges literal copying -- i.e., the twelve files identified in Oracle's interrogatory answer -- comprise in the aggregate less than one percent of Android and a similarly small percentage of the Works. Even if such files were identical to Oracle files (which they are not), their use is de minimis and is not actionable.

These issues are ripe and can be decided without further discovery as a matter of law, thereby simplifying the issues and conserving resources. We appreciate the Court's consideration of this request, and would be prepared to file our motion no later than February 28.

Respectfully submitted,

[signature]
Bruce W. Baber
Counsel for Defendant Google Inc.

3

  


Google Files Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment on Oracle's Copyright Claim - Updated 2Xs: Judge says not yet | 221 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Please group corrections here
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, February 16 2011 @ 11:29 PM EST
Sometimes it is helpful to summarize in the title
e.g. SCO -> dead duck

Before offering a correction to anything 'transcribed'
please check the PDF. Sometimes the errors are in the
original and Groklaw does NOT correct those. Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Picks comments here please
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, February 16 2011 @ 11:31 PM EST
Don't make us guess which article you are commenting on.
Give the title in the title. Also, since articles scroll
down and off the page, it is helpful to place a link to
the article in your comment. Just set post mode to HTML
and follow the helpful directions. And always remember:
preview is your friend.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic posts here
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, February 16 2011 @ 11:34 PM EST
Please post those comments that while off-topic for this
article, are still on-topic to Groklaw in general.
Try to follow the guidelines in "Important Stuff",
even if it pains you. Use of 'preview' can help you
keep from looking more foolish than you really are.
Subscribers may want to check if they are 'logged in'.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes collection contributions come here
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, February 16 2011 @ 11:35 PM EST
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chair-Throw Posts here!
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, February 16 2011 @ 11:40 PM EST
Perhaps other silliness belongs here as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Arguing the motion in the application to file it?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2011 @ 05:49 AM EST
SCO would be proud!

Joke, joke, kidding, as we so love to say round here. But I am puzzled as to
why they'd put their cards on the table. If their grounds are so obvious, then
why did Oracle even bother to bring a copyright suit in the first place? It
seems Quixotic in the extreme.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Java Powered Judges
Authored by: ionic on Thursday, February 17 2011 @ 07:06 AM EST
I know it's just an unfortnate side-effect of the formatting but
... The use in Android of such common and unprotectable elements is purely functional, namely, to enable applications written in the Java programming language to run on
The Honorable William Alsup...
made me chuckle :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's the Hurry?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, February 17 2011 @ 11:25 AM EST
While I understand that Google would like this dealt with as quickly as possible
I don't understand the need to move this quickly, except in relation to the
current case schedule.

The Scheduling Order seems to indicate substantial activities in the case
including major hearings in April, during the criminal trial the judge referred
to. If the court is under such pressure why aren't they postponed?

If a motion were filed in the normal order and responses were sent back and
forth that would take a while and surely the Judges are under no obligation to
rules that quickly, some of the SCO motions took months before they were acted
on.


---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

test
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 17 2011 @ 02:01 PM EST
Just so those who noticed will not be
wondering. I put up a test story, because
we're doing some work in the back, so to
speak.

Not to worry. *I'm* worrying because it
wasn't supposed to show up, so now we
get to work figuring out what happened.

: )

[ Reply to This | # ]

ex parte
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 04:46 AM EST
Document 79-1 gives Oracle's overall patent arguments and the Attachments A, B1, B2, C, D, E, F, G gives the patent claims together with hundreds of pages of Google Website and video links and links to related organisations like Harmony.

I summarised the content, by weight, to see if it explained why only the four were chosen for a requested review at this stage. It does not, but folk may find the summary of use.

Patent_____ ex parte review_____ Attachments_____ Pages_____ No.
104_____________ *________________ A________ 15-112____ 97
205______________________________ B1, B2____ 113-177____ 64
702_____________ *________________ C_______ 178-206____ 28
447_____________ *________________ D_______ 207-243____ 36
476_______________________________ E_______ 244-308____ 64
520_____________ *________________ F________ 309-372____ 63
720______________________________ G________ 373-407____ 34

Please note that the number of pages represents the quantity of Google's Android code and descriptions duplicated. The claims of infringement would be lost in a single page.

---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG: Yes, they hit the ground. The lawyers are now taking them to the centre of the Earth. The 'centre of the Earth' is irony.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google, Software Patents and the global nature of the internet
Authored by: ionic on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 08:01 AM EST
Suppose the software patent aspect of this case goes against Google, or
defending against software patent attacks becomes too much of a headache for
them.

What would stop Google upping sticks and leaving the USA for pastures less
encumbered (or at least threatening too)?

Google is a very rich company
They could probably afford to relocate a large proprotion of their staff.
I'm sure they could get a very good tax deal from the new "host"
nation.
They could host their service in non-US datacentres and it would still be
accessible to US users.
The mechanics of the business could be taken care of via a few intermdiary
companies to ensure that they don't directly do business in the US.

They have a legacy of innovating both technically and in the business sphere -
I'm sure they could work this out.

Google's business is global, I suspect the USA needs Google to be based there
more than Google needs to be based in the USA.
If Google even started to make noises about leaving the USA due to software
patents, would that wake the government up enough to do something about it?

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.05 seconds