``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]``.