FOSS Patents

EDIT: why am I being down voted?

Oracle has a pretty strong case against Google.

To address the issue of fair use and if APIs can be copyrightable:

1. Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs.

On October 3, 1989, the Ninth Circuit held the following in Johnson Controls v. Phoenix Control Systems:

"A computer program is made up of several different components, including the source and object code, the structure, sequence and/or organization of the program, the user interface, and the function, or purpose, of the program. Whether a particular component of a program is protected by a copyright depends on whether it qualifies as an 'expression' of an idea, rather than the idea itself."

On to paragraph 13:

"Here, the district court found that the structure, sequence and organization of the JC-5000S was expression, and thus subject to protection. [...] This issue will no doubt be revisited at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings we cannot say that the district court clearly erred."

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/886/1173/19079/

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/oracle-v-google-cant-make-apis.html

2. the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),…

Not so fast.

APIs have been copyrightable for more than 20 years.

statutory copyright law in the United States and, in particular, the case law of the Ninth Circuit (and other circuits) already allow copyright holders to claim protection of the structure, sequence and organization of their works. Yes, already. On October 3, 1989, the Ninth Circuit held the following in Johnson Controls v. Phoenix Control Systems:

"A computer program is made up of several different components, including the source and object code, the structure, sequence and/or organization of the program, the user interface, and the function, or purpose, of the program. Whether a particular component of a program is protected by a copyright depends on whether it qualifies as an 'expression' of an idea, rather than the idea itself."

paragraph 13:"Here, the district court found that the structure, sequence and organization of the JC-5000S was expression, and thus subject to protection. [...] This issue will no doubt be revisited at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings we cannot say that the district court clearly erred."

Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/886/1173/19079/

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/oracle-v-google-cant-make-apis.html

Also read Florian Mueller’s excellent analysis here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/35-us-states-and-microsoft-support-epic.html

> Epic's appeal is very much alive. Apple will use its market power and money to get support from all sorts of "friends of the court" as well, possibly even ridiculous astroturfing organizations. But it won't be able to counterbalance the support Epic received from 35 states, Microsoft, the EFF, and America's most cited and most authoritative antitrust law professor. It will probably be easy to see for the Ninth Circuit that those who support Epic do so because it's the right and necessary thing to do, while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor.

Update: The U.S. federal government has now filed a brief as well:

> The United States enforces the federal antitrust laws and has a strong interest in their correct interpretation. The United States files this brief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2), to address errors in the district court’s analysis of the Sherman Act, which, if uncorrected, could significantly harm antitrust enforcement. The United States takes no position on the merits of the parties’ claims.

Further analysis on the government’s brief specifically: http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/biden-administration-backs-epic-games.html

>I'm impressed you only had to go back 13 months to find a bad quote? If it's all horseshit use the latest column as evidence.

Very well.

How about if Mueller references his own 13 month old horseshit this very day? http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/former-sun-chief-about-google-immune-to.html as though it is still a valid theory?

Does it count as an up to date impeachment of your favorite bullshit peddler? Especially because he knows nothing came of his the-sky-is-falling claims regarding the Linux, GPL and Android? And that Linus himself said the claims were crap?

His current article also references another year old prediction he made which turned out to come to nothing as well

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/03/more-evidence-of-googles-habit-of-gpl.html

It's almost like he spews forth shitty predictions with a specific agenda in mind and doesn't care when his bullshit doesn't pan out because he makes good money by running his mouth.

Then there's this snipe at Jonathan Schwartz: "In yesterday's testimony, Jonathan Schwartz tried to do as much damage to Oracle's case as he could."

that or Schwartz told the truth which just happens to not be in Mueller's employer's favor.

I follow Florian Mueller (@FOSSPatents) for his take on most of the Qualcomm v Apple litigation (including the recent FTC antitrust case). He seems to be somewhat anti-Qualcomm (although that might just be based on his perception of their likelihood of winning). His take: [0]

> ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely invalid

> Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara just announced an initial determination ("initial" means the parties can seek a Commission review, and a final ruling is still four months off) according to which Apple is deemed to infringe one of three Qualcomm patents-in-suit... In my observation, decisions by ITC judges that run counter to staff recommendations are virtually certain to be reviewed and more likely than others to be reversed.

Also, the patent is for "multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors" and is currently being reviewed by the USPTO for validity.

[0] - http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-itc-staff.html

A Nokia spokesman is quoted in this article:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-comments-on-vp8-patent.html

as stating

“Nokia believes that open and collaborative efforts for standardization are in the best interests of consumers, innovators and the industry as a whole. We are now witnessing one company attempting to force the adoption of its proprietary technology, which offers no advantages over existing, widely deployed standards such as H.264 and infringes Nokia's intellectual property. As a result, we have taken the unusual step of declaring to the Internet Engineering Task Force that we are not prepared to license any Nokia patents which may be needed to implement its RFC6386 specification for VP8, or for derivative codecs.”

So their position is that since VP8 does not offer any technical or licensing advantages over H.264 (Nokia being at least one company that owns or claims to own patents on it), they’re going to use their patents to prevent Google from promoting VP8. At this point, I don’t see why any reasonable person would still want to use H.264 over VP8.