Federal Circuit Rules Java APIs are Copyrightable

  • Can Google prove that its use of Java APIs are transformative?
  • Can Google prove the economic value of the copied work to be marginal?

Almost two years ago, Judge Alsop of the N. District of California decided that 37 Java APIs (the list of function and variable parameter-names) are not copyrightable, On May 9, 2014, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the structure, sequence, and organization of the APIs renders them sufficiently original and non-functional to be copyrightable.

In Oracle v. Google, Google copied the elaborately organized taxonomy of all the names of methods, classes, interfaces and packages of declaring code found in the 37 Java APIs. The declaring code is used by programmers to call out specific implementation code for performing a function. Google sought to capitalize on the fact that software programmers were already trained and experienced in using the taxonomy of Java declaring code. So Google copied the Java declaring code and structure wholesale, only adding the code necessary to implement the APIs.

Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley, writing for the three-judge panel, stated that “merger cannot bar copyright protection for any lines of declaring code unless Sun/Oracle had one way, or a limited number of ways, to write them,”  Op. 30. The Federal Circuit explained that an original work — even one that serves a function — is entitled to copyright protection as long as the author had multiple ways to express the underlying idea. The court found that the declaring code in these 37 Java API packages could be expressed in other ways, thus holding the declaring code to be copyrightable.

Turning to copyright fair use, the Federal Circuit explained that fair use requires a balance of four factors – namely: the purpose and character of the use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. However, the Federal Circuit could not rule out questions of fact both as to whether Google’s use of the declaring code was a transformative purpose and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyright work. For this reason, the court remanded the case back to the lower court to determine whether Google’s copying of declaring code for Android amounts to a fair use.

This remand may bring Google to a hard reality — the law of diminishing returns. Amid this hard fought battle, there have been few victories. There are but a few decisions for the lower court to make concerning the transformative purpose and the economic value of the copyrighted work and then likely appeals. The likelihood of success is diminishing.

One determination, that the copying is fair use, may not go well for Google. After all, can unauthorized use of copyrighted code in a hugely successful commercial product such as Android really amount to fair use?

The other determination, that the economic value of the copied work from the copyrightable expression is marginal, may also not demonstrate fair use. But it could contain damages on a technology that is core to Android.

About The Juhasz Law Firm

About Paul R. Juhasz