``Introduction``
================
"Details, unnumbered, shifting, sharp, disordered, unchartable,
jagged."
Llewellyn, Karl N. *The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study* 106
(Quid Pro 2012) (1930).
AuthoritySpoke is a Python package for making legal analysis readable by
both computers and humans.
This notebook will provide an overview of AuthoritySpoke's most
important features. Please remember that AuthoritySpoke is in an early
alpha state, so many features have yet to be implemented, and some
others still have limited functionality.
Importing the Package
------------------------
Let's start by importing the package and its Opinion class.
(When I capitalize a seemingly random word, it's usually the name of an
AuthoritySpoke class.)
.. code:: ipython3
import authorityspoke
If you executed that cell with no error messages, then it worked!
If you got a message like ``No module named 'authorityspoke'``, then
AuthoritySpoke is probably not installed in your current Python
environment. In that case, check the documentation for help.
Downloading and Importing Opinions
-------------------------------------
Now we need some court opinions to load into AuthoritySpoke. We can
collect these from the Case Access Project API, a project of the Harvard
Law School Library Innovation Lab. To download full cases from CAP,
you'll need to `register for an API
key `__. However, if you'd rather skip
forward to the end of this section without interacting with the API, you
can. There's already a copy of the files we're going to download in the
example\_data/opinions folder of this repository.
The CAP API limits users to downloading 500 full cases per day. If you
accidentally make a query that returns hundreds of full cases, you could
hit your limit before you know it. You should first try out your API
queries without the "full\_case": "true" parameter, and then only
request full cases once you're confident you'll receive what you expect.
To minimize the risk of revealing your API key to others, you can store
it in an environment variable called CAP\_API\_KEY and then retrieve it
as shown in the cell below.
If you're viewing this tutorial in a cloud environment like Binder, you
could either replace ``os.environ['CAP_API_KEY']`` with a string
containing your own API key, or skip the use of the API key as described
below.
.. code:: ipython3
import os
CAP_API_KEY = os.environ['CAP_API_KEY']
Next we need to choose which cases to download for our analysis.
Let's download *Oracle America v. Google* (2014), a landmark opinion in
which the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that the API
declarations for the Java language were copyrightable. And since we'll
want to compare the *Oracle* case to a related case, let's also download
*Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International* (1995). In that
case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the menu structure of
a spreadsheet program called Lotus 1-2-3 was uncopyrightable because it
was a "method of operation" under the Copyright Act. As we'll see, the
*Oracle* case discusses and disagrees with the Lotus case.
Citations: \* *Oracle America v. Google*: 750 F.3d 1339 \* *Lotus
Development Corporation v. Borland International*: 49 F.3d 807
.. code:: ipython3
from authorityspoke.io.downloads import download_case
oracle_download = download_case(cite="750 F.3d 1339", filename="oracle_h.json")
Now we have a record representing the *Oracle* case, which has been
saved to the "example\_data/opinions" folder under the filename
"oracle\_h.json". (I included the "h" in the filename to remind me that
this file came from the Harvard CAP API.) Let's look at the API
response.
.. code:: ipython3
oracle_download
.. parsed-literal::
{'id': 4066790,
'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/cases/4066790/',
'frontend_url': 'https://cite.case.law/f3d/750/1339/',
'name': 'ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant',
'name_abbreviation': 'Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.',
'decision_date': '2014-05-09',
'docket_number': 'Nos. 2013-1021, 2013-1022',
'first_page': '1339',
'last_page': '1381',
'citations': [{'type': 'official', 'cite': '750 F.3d 1339'}],
'volume': {'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/volumes/32044132273806/',
'volume_number': '750'},
'reporter': {'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/reporters/933/',
'full_name': 'Federal Reporter 3d Series'},
'court': {'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/courts/fed-cir/',
'id': 8955,
'slug': 'fed-cir',
'name': 'United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit',
'name_abbreviation': 'Fed. Cir.'},
'jurisdiction': {'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/jurisdictions/us/',
'id': 39,
'slug': 'us',
'name': 'U.S.',
'name_long': 'United States',
'whitelisted': False}}
Yes, this is the case I expected. But if I had provided my API key and
used the full\_case flag, I could have received more information, like
whether there are any non-majority opinions in the case, and the names
of the opinion authors. So let's request the *Oracle* case with
``full_case=True``.
.. code:: ipython3
oracle_download = download_case(
cite="750 F.3d 1339",
filename="oracle_h.json",
full_case=True,
api_key=CAP_API_KEY)
And then do the same for the *Lotus* case.
.. code:: ipython3
lotus_download = download_case(
cite="49 F.3d 807",
filename="lotus_h.json",
full_case=True,
api_key=CAP_API_KEY)
Now let's convert the *Oracle* API response to an AuthoritySpoke object.
.. code:: ipython3
from authorityspoke.io.readers import read_case
oracle = read_case(oracle_download)
And take a look at the object we made.
.. code:: ipython3
oracle
.. parsed-literal::
Opinion(name='ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant', name_abbreviation='Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.', citations=('750 F.3d 1339',), first_page=1339, last_page=1381, decision_date=datetime.date(2014, 5, 9), court='fed-cir', position='majority', author='O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.')
The *Lotus* case has a concurring opinion as well as a majority opinion.
By default, the ``read_case`` command will just create just one Opinion
object, from the majority opinion.
.. code:: ipython3
lotus = read_case(lotus_download)
lotus
.. parsed-literal::
Opinion(name='LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Appellant', name_abbreviation='Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.', citations=('49 F.3d 807',), first_page=807, last_page=822, decision_date=datetime.date(1995, 3, 9), court='1st-cir', position='majority', author='STAHL, Circuit Judge.')
Finally, what should you do if you chose not to get an API key or were
unable to create the Opinion objects from downloaded data? Use the
following commands to create the Opinion objects from the files in the
``example_data/cases`` folder.
If you already did the steps above, you can skip the next cell and go to
section 3.
.. code:: ipython3
# If you already downloaded Opinions from the API,
# running this cell will overwrite them with example data.
# You should be able to use the rest of the notebook either way.
from authorityspoke.io.loaders import load_opinion
oracle = load_opinion("oracle_h.json")
lotus = load_opinion("lotus_h.json")
Importing Codes
------------------
AuthoritySpoke does not currently interface with any API to retrieve
legislative codes, the way it connects to the CAP API to retrieve case
opinions. However, AuthoritySpoke can import legislative XML files as
Code objects ("Code" in the sense of a legislative code), if the XML
adheres to the United States Legislative Markup (USLM) format as used by
the United States Code. Although AuthoritySpoke does have functions to
import federal regulations and California statutes, which are not
published in USLM, those functions are brittle and should only be used
to create test data.
When multiple Codes are enacted in one country's legal system, the best
way to organize the Code objects is to create a Regime object
representing the country and link each of the Codes to the Regime
object.
.. code:: ipython3
from authorityspoke import Regime
from authorityspoke.io.loaders import load_code
usa = Regime()
us_constitution = load_code("constitution.xml")
usc_title_17 = load_code("usc17.xml")
code_of_federal_regulations_title_37 = load_code("cfr37.xml")
usa.set_code(us_constitution)
usa.set_code(usc_title_17)
usa.set_code(code_of_federal_regulations_title_37)
Linking Rules to Opinions
----------------------------
Now we can link some legal analysis to each opinion by using its
``posit`` method. The parameter we pass to this function is the name of
a JSON file containing structured information about the legal Holdings
posited by the opinion. A **Holding** is statement about whether a
**Rule** is or is not valid law. When an Opinion **posits** a Holding,
that means that the Opinion adopts the Holding as its own. An Opinion
may posit more than one Holding, and the same Holding may be posited by
more than one Opinion.
Sadly, the labor of creating data about Holdings falls mainly to the
user rather than the computer, at least in this early version of
AuthoritySpoke. AuthoritySpoke loads Holdings from structured
descriptions that need to be created outside of AuthoritySpoke as JSON
files.
An explanation of the interface for creating new Holding objects can be
found in the ``create_holding_data`` notebook in this folder. That
interface should continue to undergo major changes as AuthoritySpoke
moves beyond version 0.2.
For now, this introduction will rely on example JSON files that have
already been created. AuthoritySpoke should find them when we call the
``load_holdings`` function. If you pass in a ``regime`` parameter,
AuthoritySpoke can use it to find and link the statutes or other
Enactments cited in the Holding.
.. code:: ipython3
from authorityspoke.io.loaders import load_holdings
oracle_holdings = load_holdings("holding_oracle.json", regime=usa)
lotus_holdings = load_holdings("holding_lotus.json", regime=usa)
The following commands will assign the Holdings to each Opinion.
.. code:: ipython3
oracle.posit(oracle_holdings)
lotus.posit(lotus_holdings)
You can pass either one Holding or a list of Holdings to
``Opinion.posit()``. The ``Opinion.posit()`` method also has a
``text_links`` parameter that takes a dict indicating what text spans in
the Opinion should be linked to which Holding.
Viewing an Opinion's Holdings
--------------------------------
If you take a look in holding\_oracle.json, you'll see that there are 20
holdings. (You can verify this by checking how many times the string
"inputs" appears in the file.)
Let's make sure that the .posit() method linked all of those holdings to
our ``oracle`` Opinion object.
.. code:: ipython3
len(oracle.holdings)
.. parsed-literal::
20
Now let's see the string representation of the AuthoritySpoke Holding
object we created from the structured JSON we saw above.
.. code:: ipython3
print(oracle.holdings[0])
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
RESULT:
the Fact it is false that was copyrightable
GIVEN:
the Fact it is false that was an original work
GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
Instead of the terms "inputs" and "outputs" we saw in the JSON file, we
now have "GIVEN" and "RESULT". And the "RESULT" comes first, because
it's hard to understand anything else about a legal rule until you
understand what it does. Also, notice the separate heading "GIVEN the
ENACTMENT". This indicates that the existence of statutory text (or
another kind of enactment such as a constitution) can also be a
precondition for a Rule to apply. So the two preconditions that must be
present to apply this Rule are "the Fact it is false that the Java API
was an original work" and the statutory text creating copyright
protection.
It's also important to notice that a Rule can be purely hypothetical
from the point of view of the Opinion that posits it. In this case, the
court finds that there would be a certain legal significance if it was
"GIVEN" that ``it is false that was an original work``,
but the court isn't going to find that precondition applies, so it's
also not going to accept the "RESULT" that
``it is false that was copyrightable``.
We can also access just the inputs of a Holding, just the Enactments,
etc.
.. code:: ipython3
oracle.holdings[0].inputs
.. parsed-literal::
(Fact(predicate=Predicate(content='{} was an original work', truth=False, reciprocal=False, comparison='', quantity=None), context_factors=(Entity(name='the Java API', generic=True, plural=False),), name='false the Java API was an original work', standard_of_proof=None, absent=False, generic=False),)
.. code:: ipython3
oracle.holdings[0].enactments
.. parsed-literal::
(Enactment(selector=TextQuoteSelector(path='/us/usc/t17/s102/a', exact='Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.', prefix=None, suffix=None, source=None), code=Code(Title 17), regime=None, name='copyright protection provision'),)
Generic Factors
------------------
The two instances of the phrase "the Java API" are in angle brackets
because that phrase is one of the ``"mentioned_factors"`` we defined in
the JSON. More specifically, the angle brackets are there because Entity
objects are considered ``generic`` by default, and we didn't specify
otherwise.
.. code:: ipython3
oracle.holdings[0].generic_factors
.. parsed-literal::
(Entity(name='the Java API', generic=True, plural=False),)
A generic Entity is "generic" in the sense that in the context of the
Factor or Rule where the Entity appears, it could be replaced with some
other Entity without changing the meaning of the Factor or Rule. Legal
Rules exist in the abstract, but the same rule may apply in many
different specific contexts.
Let's illustrate this idea with the first holding from the Lotus case.
.. code:: ipython3
print(lotus.holdings[0])
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
RESULT:
the Fact that infringed the copyright in
GIVEN:
the Fact that was copyrightable
the Fact that copied constituent elements of that were original
GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
What if we wanted to generalize this Rule about copyright and apply it
in a different context, maybe involving books or movies instead of
computer programs? First we could look at the ``"generic"`` Factors of
the Rule, which were marked off in angle brackets in the string
representation of the Rule.
.. code:: ipython3
lotus.holdings[0].generic_factors
.. parsed-literal::
(Entity(name='Borland International', generic=True, plural=False),
Entity(name='the Lotus menu command hierarchy', generic=True, plural=False))
The same Rules and Holdings may be relevant to more than one Opinion.
Let's try applying the idea from ``lotus.holdings[0]`` to a different
copyright case that's also about a derivative work. In `*Castle Rock
Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group
Inc.* `__
(1998), a United States Court of Appeals found that a publisher
infringed the copyright in the sitcom *Seinfeld* by publishing a trivia
book called *SAT: The Seinfeld Aptitude Test*.
Maybe we'd like to see how the Rule from the *Lotus* case could have
applied in the context of the *Castle Rock Entertainment* case, under 17
USC 102 had applied to that dispute. We can check that by replacing the
generic factors from the *Lotus* Rule.
.. code:: ipython3
from authorityspoke import Entity
seinfeld_holding = lotus.holdings[0].new_context(
{Entity('Borland International'): Entity('Carol Publishing Group'),
Entity('the Lotus menu command hierarchy'): Entity("Seinfeld")}
)
In AuthoritySpoke, Holding and Factor objects are "frozen" objects,
which means Python will try to prevent you from modifying the object
after it has been created. The ``new_context`` method returns a new
Holding object, which we've assigned to the name ``seinfeld_holding``,
but the Holding that we used as a basis for the new object also still
exists, and it's unchanged.
.. code:: ipython3
print(seinfeld_holding)
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
RESULT:
the Fact that infringed the copyright in
GIVEN:
the Fact that was copyrightable
the Fact that copied constituent elements of that were original
GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
Even though these Holdings have different generic factors and don't
evaluate equal to one another, the ``means`` method shows that they have
the same meaning. In other words, they both endorse exactly the same
legal Rule. If Holding A ``means`` Holding B, then Holding A also
necessarily ``implies`` Holding B.
.. code:: ipython3
lotus.holdings[0] == seinfeld_holding
.. parsed-literal::
False
.. code:: ipython3
lotus.holdings[0].means(seinfeld_holding)
.. parsed-literal::
True
Enactment Objects and Implication
------------------------------------
Sometimes it's useful to know whether one Rule or Holding implies
another. Basically, one legal Holding implies a second Holding if its
meaning entirely includes the meaning of the second Holding. To
illustrate this idea, let's look at the Enactment that needs to be
present to trigger the Holding at ``oracle.holdings[0]``.
.. code:: ipython3
copyright_provision = oracle.holdings[0].enactments[0]
copyright_provision
.. parsed-literal::
Enactment(selector=TextQuoteSelector(path='/us/usc/t17/s102/a', exact='Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.', prefix=None, suffix=None, source=None), code=Code(Title 17), regime=None, name='copyright protection provision')
The Enactment object refers to a Code object, which is an instance of an
AuthoritySpoke class representing a code of laws. Specifically, it
refers to `Title 17 of the United States
Code `__.
.. code:: ipython3
usc = copyright_provision.code
print(usc)
.. parsed-literal::
Title 17
Next, let's create a new Enactment object representing a shorter passage
of text from the same Code.
.. code:: ipython3
from authorityspoke import Enactment
from authorityspoke.selectors import TextQuoteSelector
works_of_authorship_selector = TextQuoteSelector(
path="/us/usc/t17/s102/a",
exact=("Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title,"
+ " in original works of authorship")
)
works_of_authorship_clause = Enactment(
selector=works_of_authorship_selector,
regime=usa
)
Now we can create a new Holding object that cites to our new Enactment
object rather than the old one. This time, instead of using the
``new_context`` method to create a new Holding object, we'll use the
``evolve`` method. With the ``evolve`` method, instead of specifying
Factors that should be replaced wherever they're found, we specify which
attributes from the Rule object's ``__init__`` method we want to
replace, and then specify what we want to replace those attributes' old
values with. This returns a new Holding object and doesn't change the
existing Holding.
.. code:: ipython3
rule_with_shorter_enactment = oracle.holdings[0].evolve(
{"enactments": works_of_authorship_clause}
)
.. code:: ipython3
print(rule_with_shorter_enactment)
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
RESULT:
the Fact it is false that was copyrightable
GIVEN:
the Fact it is false that was an original work
GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
Now let's try comparing this new Rule with the real Rule from the
*Oracle* case, to see whether one implies the other. When you're
comparing AuthoritySpoke objects, the greater than sign ``>`` means
"implies, but is not equal to".
.. code:: ipython3
rule_with_shorter_enactment > oracle.holdings[0]
.. parsed-literal::
True
You can also use the greater than or equal sign ``>=`` to mean "implies
or is equal to". In logic, it's common to say that identical statements
also imply one another, so that would mean ``>=`` is the symbol that
really means "implies". ``<=`` can also be used, and it means "is
implied by or is equal to".
.. code:: ipython3
rule_with_shorter_enactment <= oracle.holdings[0]
.. parsed-literal::
False
By comparing the string representations of the original Rule from the
*Oracle* case and ``rule_with_shorter_enactment``, can you tell why the
latter implies the former, and not the other way around?
If you guessed that it was because ``rule_with_shorter_enactment`` has a
shorter Enactment, you're right. Rules that require fewer, or less
specific, inputs are *broader* than Rules that have more inputs, because
there's a larger set of situations where those Rules can be triggered.
If this relationship isn't clear to you, imagine some "Enactment A"
containing only a subset of the text of "Enactment B", and then imagine
what would happen if a legislature amended some of the statutory text
that was part of Enactment B but not of Enactment A. A requirement to
cite Enactment B would no longer be possible to satisfy, because some of
that text would no longer be available. Thus a requirement to cite
Enactment A could be satisfied in every situation where a requirement to
cite Enactment B could be satisfied, and then some.
If you've read the discussion of `type variance in the mypy
documentation `__,
it might help to think of Rules and Holdings as similar to callables
that are contravariant with their inputs, but covariant with their
outputs.
Checking for Contradictions
-------------------------------
Let's turn back to the *Lotus* case.
It says that under a statute providing that "In no case does copyright
protection for an original work of authorship extend to any...method of
operation", the fact that a Lotus menu command hierarchy was a "method
of operation" meant that it was also uncopyrightable, despite a couple
of Facts that might tempt some courts to rule the other way.
.. code:: ipython3
print(lotus.holdings[8])
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
RESULT:
the Fact it is false that was copyrightable
GIVEN:
the Fact that was a method of operation
DESPITE:
the Fact that a text described
the Fact that was an original work
GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)
"method of operation" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)
*Lotus* was a case relied upon by Google in the *Oracle v. Google* case,
but Oracle was the winner in that decision. So we might wonder whether
the *Oracle* Opinion contradicts the *Lotus* Opinion. Let's check.
.. code:: ipython3
oracle.contradicts(lotus)
.. parsed-literal::
True
Good to know! But maybe we want more detail than that. Let's check each
Holding posited by the *Oracle* case to see whether it contradicts
lotus.holdings[8].
.. code:: ipython3
for index, oracle_holding in enumerate(oracle.holdings):
print(f'{index:02} {oracle_holding.contradicts(lotus.holdings[8])}')
.. parsed-literal::
00 False
01 False
02 False
03 False
04 False
05 False
06 False
07 False
08 False
09 False
10 True
11 False
12 False
13 False
14 False
15 False
16 False
17 False
18 False
19 False
It looks like the Holding at index 10 of oracle.holdings contradicts the
*Lotus* court's Holding. Let's read it and see if we can spot the
contradiction.
.. code:: ipython3
print(oracle.holdings[10])
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
RESULT:
the Fact that was copyrightable
GIVEN:
the Fact that was a computer program
the Fact that was a set of application programming interface declarations
the Fact that was an original work
the Fact that was a non-literal element of
the Fact that was the expression of an idea
the Fact it is false that was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied
the Fact that was creative
the Fact that it was possible to use without copying
DESPITE:
the Fact that was a method of operation
the Fact that contained short phrases
the Fact that became so popular that it was the industry standard
the Fact that there was a preexisting community of programmers accustomed to using
GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
DESPITE the ENACTMENTS:
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)
"method of operation" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)
"The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained: (a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans;" (Code of Federal Regulations Title 37, /us/cfr/t37/s202.1)
We can use the ``explain_contradiction`` method to generate
"explanations" of why a contradiction is possible between these two
Holdings. Each explanation is a mapping that shows how the context
factors of the Holding on the left can be mapped onto the Holding on the
right. The ``explain_contradiction`` returns a generator object, so you
can use the ``next()`` command on it to get explanations one at a time.
For this example, I'll just convert it to a list.
.. code:: ipython3
explanations = lotus.holdings[8].explain_contradiction(oracle.holdings[10])
explanations = list(explanations)
print(explanations[0])
.. parsed-literal::
ContextRegister( -> )
So the explanation we've been given is that these two Holdings
contradict each other if you consider 'the Lotus menu command hierarchy'
to be analagous to 'the Java API'. The other possible explanation
AuthoritySpoke could have given would have been that 'the Lotus menu
command hierarchy' is analagous to 'the Java language'. Let's see if the
other possible ``ContextRegister`` also appears in ``explanations``.
.. code:: ipython3
len(explanations)
.. parsed-literal::
1
No, there's only the one explanation of how these rules can contradict
each other. If you read the *Oracle* case, this makes sense. It's only
about infringing the copyright in the Java API, not the copyright in the
whole Java language. A statement about infringement of 'the Java
language' would be irrelevant, not contradictory.
But what exactly is the contradiction between the two Holdings?
The first obvious contrast between ``lotus.holdings[8]`` and
``oracle.holdings[10]`` is that the Holding from the *Lotus* case is
relatively succinct and categorical. The *Lotus* court interprets
Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act to mean that if a work is a "method
of operation", it's simply impossible for that work to be copyrighted,
so it's not necessary to consider a lot of case-specific facts to reach
a conclusion.
The Federal Circuit's *Oracle* decision complicates that view
significantly. The Federal Circuit believes that the fact that an API
is, or hypothetically might be, a "method of operation" is only one of
many factors that a court can consider in deciding copyrightability. The
following quotation, repeated in the *Oracle* case, illustrates the
Federal Circuit's view.
“Section 102(b) does not extinguish the protection accorded a
particular expression of an idea merely because that expression is
embodied in a method of operation.” *Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc.*,
124 F.3d 1366, 1372 (10th Cir.1997)
And that's why AuthoritySpoke finds a contradiction between these two
Rules. The *Oracle* opinion says that courts can sometimes accept the
result ``the Fact that was copyrightable`` despite the
fact `` was a method of operation``. The *Lotus* Opinion
would consider that impossible.
By the way, AuthoritySpoke isn't applying any sophisticated grammatical
parsing to understand the meaning of each Fact. AuthoritySpoke won't
recognize that Facts have the same meaning unless their ``content``
values are exactly the same string. As discussed above, they can also
differ in their references to generic factors, which are the phrases
that appear in brackets when you use the ``print()`` command on them.
(AuthoritySpoke can also compare Facts based on an optional numeric
value that can come at the end of the string, which isn't demonstrated
in this tutorial.)
Adding Holdings
-------------------------
To try out the addition feature, let's load another case from the
``example_data`` folder.
.. code:: ipython3
feist = load_opinion("feist_h.json")
feist_holdings = load_holdings("holding_feist.json", regime=usa)
feist.posit(feist_holdings)
`*Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service
Co.* `__
was a case that held that the listings in a telephone directory did not
qualify as "an original work" and thus were not eligible for protection
under the Copyright Act. This is a two-step analysis.
The first step results in "the Fact it is false that were an original
work":
.. code:: ipython3
print(feist.holdings[11])
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
RESULT:
the Fact it is false that were an original work
GIVEN:
the Fact that were names, towns, and telephone numbers of telephone subscribers
GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
"the exclusive Right to their respective Writings" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
"The copyright in a compilation" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s103/b)
"extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s103/b)
And the second step relies on the result of the first step to reach the
further result of "absence of the Fact that was copyrightable".
.. code:: ipython3
print(feist.holdings[4])
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
RESULT:
absence of the Fact that was copyrightable
GIVEN:
absence of the Fact that was an original work
GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
"the exclusive Right to their respective Writings" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
In this situation, anytime the first Holding (feist.holdings[11]) is
applied, the second Holding (feist.holdings[4]) can be applied as well.
That means the two Holdings can be added together to make a single
Holding that captures the whole process.
.. code:: ipython3
listings_not_copyrightable = feist.holdings[11] + feist.holdings[4]
print(listings_not_copyrightable)
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
RESULT:
the Fact it is false that were an original work
absence of the Fact that were copyrightable
GIVEN:
the Fact that were names, towns, and telephone numbers of telephone subscribers
GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
"the exclusive Right to their respective Writings" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
"The copyright in a compilation" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s103/b)
"extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s103/b)
The difference between ``feist.holdings[11]`` and the newly-created
Holding ``listings_not_copyrightable`` is that
``listings_not_copyrightable`` has two Factors under its "RESULT", not
just one.
You might recall that oracle.holdings[0] also was also about the
relationship between originality and copyrightability. Let's see what
happens when we add oracle.holdings[0] to feist.holdings[11].
.. code:: ipython3
print(feist.holdings[11] + oracle.holdings[0])
.. parsed-literal::
None
Can you guess why it's not possible to add these two Holdings together?
Here's a hint:
.. code:: ipython3
feist.holdings[11].universal
.. parsed-literal::
False
.. code:: ipython3
oracle.holdings[0].universal
.. parsed-literal::
False
.. code:: ipython3
feist.holdings[4].universal
.. parsed-literal::
True
``feist.holdings[11]`` and ``oracle.holdings[0]`` are both Holdings that
purport to apply in "SOME" cases where the specified inputs are present,
while ``feist.holdings[4]`` purports to apply in "ALL" such cases.
You can't infer that there's any situation where ``feist.holdings[11]``
and ``oracle.holdings[0]`` can actually be applied together, because
there might not be any overlap between the "SOME" cases where one
applies and the "SOME" cases where the other applies. But
``feist.holdings[4]`` says it applies in "ALL" cases as long as the
inputs mention in its "GIVEN" fields are satisfied. That means that if
``feist.holdings[11]`` and ``feist.holdings[4]`` are both valid law,
then we know they can both apply together in any of the "SOME" cases
where ``feist.holdings[11]`` applies.
Set Operations with Holdings
--------------------------------
In AuthoritySpoke, the union operation is different from the addition
operation, and it usually gives different results.
.. code:: ipython3
result_of_adding = feist.holdings[11] + feist.holdings[4]
result_of_union = feist.holdings[11] | feist.holdings[4]
result_of_adding == result_of_union
.. parsed-literal::
False
Two set operations that can be meaningfully applied to AuthoritySpoke
objects are the union operation (using Python's \| operator) and the
intersection operation (not yet implemented in AuthoritySpoke 0.2).
For context, let's review how these operators apply to ordinary Python
sets. The union operator combines two sets by returning a new set with
all of the elements of either of the original sets.
.. code:: ipython3
{3, 4} | {1, 4, 5}
.. parsed-literal::
{1, 3, 4, 5}
The intersection operator returns a new set with only the elements that
were in both original sets.
.. code:: ipython3
{3, 4} & {1, 4, 5}
.. parsed-literal::
{4}
Apply the union operator to two Holdings to get a new Holding with all
of the inputs and all of the outputs of both of the two original
Holdings. However, you only get such a new Holding if it can be inferred
by accepting the truth of the two original Holdings. If the two original
holdings contradict one another, the operation returns ``None``.
Likewise, if the two original holdings both have the value ``False`` for
the parameter ``universal``, the operation will return ``None`` if it's
possible that the "SOME" cases where one of the original Holdings
applies don't overlap with the "SOME" cases where the other applies.
In this example, we'll look at a holding from *Oracle*, then a holding
from *Feist*, and then the union of both of them.
.. code:: ipython3
print(oracle.holdings[1])
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
RESULT:
the Fact that was an original work
GIVEN:
the Fact that was independently created by the author, as opposed to copied from other works
the Fact that possessed at least some minimal degree of creativity
GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
.. code:: ipython3
print(feist.holdings[2])
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
RESULT:
the Fact it is false that was copyrightable
GIVEN:
the Fact that was an idea
GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
"the exclusive Right to their respective Writings" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
.. code:: ipython3
print(oracle.holdings[1] | feist.holdings[2])
.. parsed-literal::
the Holding to ACCEPT
the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
RESULT:
the Fact that was an original work
the Fact it is false that was copyrightable
GIVEN:
the Fact that was independently created by the author, as opposed to copied from other works
the Fact that possessed at least some minimal degree of creativity
the Fact that was an idea
GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
"the exclusive Right to their respective Writings" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors" (Constitution of the United States, /us/const/article-I/8/8)
"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)
It's not obvious that a litigant could really establish all the "GIVEN"
Factors listed above in a single case in a court where
``oracle.holdings[1]`` and ``feist.holdings[2]`` were both valid law,
but if they could, then it seems correct for AuthoritySpoke to conclude
that the court would have to find both
``the Fact that was an original work`` and
``the Fact it is false that was copyrightable``.
The union operator is useful for searching for contradictions in a
collection of Holdings. When two Holdings are combined together with the
union operator, their union might contradict other Holdings that neither
of the two original Holdings would have contradicted on their own.
Nuances of Meaning in Holdings
----------------------------------
Let's look at one more sentence from the *Oracle* Opinion, so I can
point out a few more design decisions AuthoritySpoke makes in
representing procedural Holdings.
In the Ninth Circuit, while questions regarding originality are
considered questions of copyrightability, concepts of merger and
scenes a faire are affirmative defenses to claims of infringement.
(The "merger" doctrine says that a work is deemed to be "merged" with an
uncopyrightable idea if it's essentially the only way to express the
idea. "Scenes a faire" is a concept applied mostly to works of fiction,
and it means that conventional genre tropes are not copyrightable.)
The quoted sentence is fairly ordinary, as court opinions go, but I
found several interesting challenges in creating structered data about
its procedural meaning.
1. The sentence describes what the law is "In the Ninth Circuit". You
might remember that the court that issued the Oracle opinion was the
Federal Circuit, not the Ninth Circuit. So the Federal Circuit is
deciding what it thinks that the Ninth Circuit thinks that Congress
meant by enacting the statute. The middle layer of this
interpretation, in which the Federal Circuit attributes a belief to
the Ninth Circuit, is simply absent from the AuthoritySpoke model of
the Holding. However, future updates to AuthoritySpoke might make it
possible to capture this information.
2. The sentence uses the concept of an "affirmative defense", which
generally means a defense that the defendant has the burden of proof
to establish. I chose to model this concept by writing that if one of
the facts that would establish the affirmative defense is present,
then it could be established that the copyright was not infringed,
but if they are both absent, then the copyright could have been
infringed. I'm sure some legal experts would find this too
simplistic, and would argue that it's not possible to formalize the
concept of an affirmative defense without explicitly mentioning
procedural concepts like a burden of proof.
3. The sentence seems to have something to say about what happens if
either of two Factors are present, or if both of them are absent.
That makes three different Rules. It's not ideal for one sentence to
explode into multiple different Python objects when it's formalized,
and it's worth wondering whether there would have been a way to pack
all the information into a single object.
4. I noticed that the concept of a copyrighted work being "merged" or
being a "scene a faire" are both characteristics intrinsic in the
copyrighted work, and don't depend on the characteristics of the
allegedly infringing work. So if a work that's "merged" or is a
"scene a faire" can't be infringed, that means there are some works
that are "copyrightable" but that can never be infringed by any other
work. I suspect that the court's interpretation of these legal
categories could confuse future courts and parties, with the result
that the "merger" or "scene a faire" concepts could fall through the
cracks and be ignored. Would there be a useful way to have
AuthoritySpoke flag the issue that a conclusion about two different
Entities is being based on Factors that only relate to one of those
two Entities?
The three Holding objects used to represent the sentence from the
*Oracle* opinion can be found in the Appendix below. They're
``oracle.holdings[11]`` through ``oracle.holdings[13]``.