Example Holdings

This is an appendix to the Introduction, listing all of the Holding objects in oracle.holdings and lotus.holdings. Each Holding will be preceded by a passage from the Opinion that indicates the Opinion has endorsed the Holding. In future versions, AuthoritySpoke will give users the ability to explore the text passages in Opinions that provide support for each Holding, but that’s currently not implemented.

To find the full text of the opinions, look in the example_data/opinions/ folder of the GitHub repository. The text delivered by the CAP API was collected from print sources, so it will contain some Optical Character Recognition errors.

Lotus v. Borland, 49 F.3d 807 (1995)

To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”

for h in lotus.holdings[:3]:
    print(str(h) + "\n\n")
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <Borland International> infringed the copyright in <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was copyrightable
      the Fact that <Borland International> copied constituent elements of <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> 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)


the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      absence of the Fact that <Borland International> infringed the copyright in <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>
    GIVEN:
      absence of the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was copyrightable
    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)


the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      absence of the Fact that <Borland International> infringed the copyright in <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>
    GIVEN:
      absence of the Fact that <Borland International> copied constituent elements of <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> 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)




In judicial proceedings, a certificate of copyright registration
constitutes prima facie evidence of copyrightability and shifts the
burden to the defendant to demonstrate why the copyright is not
valid.
print(lotus.holdings[4])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Evidence
        OF:
          the Exhibit in the FORM of certificate of copyright registration
        INDICATING:
          the Fact that <Lotus Development Corporation> registered a copyright covering <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>
      absence of the Fact it is false that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was copyrightable
    GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
      "In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the court." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s410/c)


To show actionable copying and therefore satisfy Feist’s second
prong, a plaintiff must first prove that the alleged infringer
copied plaintiffs copyrighted work as a factual matter; to do this,
he or she may either present direct evidence of factual copying
or...
print(lotus.holdings[5])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <Borland International> copied <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> in creating <Quattro's Lotus Emulation Interface>
    GIVEN:
      the Evidence
        INDICATING:
          the Fact that <Borland International> copied <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> in creating <Quattro's Lotus Emulation Interface>
    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)


To show actionable copying and therefore satisfy Feist’s second
prong, a plaintiff must first prove that the alleged infringer
copied plaintiffs copyrighted work as a factual matter; to do this,
he or she may either present direct evidence of factual copying or,
if that is unavailable, evidence that the alleged infringer had
access to the copyrighted work and that the offending and
copyrighted works are so similar that the court may infer that there
was factual copying (i.e., probative similarity).
print(lotus.holdings[6])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <Borland International> copied <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> in creating <Quattro's Lotus Emulation Interface>
    GIVEN:
      the Evidence
        INDICATING:
          the Fact that <Borland International> had access to <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>
      the Fact that <Borland International> published <Quattro's Lotus Emulation Interface>
      the Evidence
        INDICATING:
          the Fact that <Quattro's Lotus Emulation Interface> was very similar to <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>
    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)


To show actionable copying and therefore satisfy Feist’s second
prong, a plaintiff must first prove that the alleged infringer
copied plaintiffs copyrighted work as a factual matter...The
plaintiff must then prove that the copying of copyrighted material
was so extensive that it rendered the offending and copyrighted
works substantially similar.
print(lotus.holdings[7])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <Borland International> copied constituent elements of <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> that were original
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <Borland International> copied <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> in creating <Quattro's Lotus Emulation Interface>
      the Fact that the copying of <Quattro's Lotus Emulation Interface> in <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was so extensive that it rendered them substantially similar
    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)


Section 102(b) states: “In no case does copyright protection for an
original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process,
system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work.” Because we conclude that the
Lotus menu command hierarchy is a method of operation, we do not
consider whether it could also be a system, process, or
procedure...while original expression is necessary for copyright
protection, we do not think that it is alone sufficient. Courts must
still inquire whether original expression falls within one of the
categories foreclosed from copyright protection by § 102(b), such as
being a “method of operation.”
print(lotus.holdings[8])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was a method of operation
    DESPITE:
      the Fact that a text described <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>
      the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> 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)


We hold that the Lotus menu command hierarchy is an uneopyrightable
“method of operation.” The Lotus menu command hierarchy provides the
means by which users control and operate Lotus 1-2-3. If users wish
to copy material, for example, they use the “Copy” command. If users
wish to print material, they use the “Print” command. Users must use
the command terms to tell the computer what to do. Without the menu
command hierarchy, users would not be able to access and control, or
indeed make use of, Lotus 1-2-3’s functional capabilities.
print(lotus.holdings[9])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was a method of operation
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <Lotus 1-2-3> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> provided the means by which users controlled and operated <Lotus 1-2-3>
      the Fact that without <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>, users would not have been able to access and control, or indeed make use of, <Lotus 1-2-3>’s functional capabilities
      the Fact that for another computer program to by operated in substantially the same way as <Lotus 1-2-3>, the other program would have to copy <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>
    DESPITE:
      the Fact that the developers of <Lotus 1-2-3> made some expressive choices in choosing and arranging the terms in <the Lotus menu command hierarchy>
    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)


We do not think that “methods of operation” are limited to
abstractions; rather, they are the means by which a user operates
something.
print(lotus.holdings[10])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was a method of operation
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was the means by which a person operated <Lotus 1-2-3>
    DESPITE:
      the Fact it is false that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was an abstraction
    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)


In other words, to offer the same capabilities as Lotus 1-2-3,
Borland did not have to copy Lotus’s underlying code (and indeed it
did not); to 'allow users to operate its programs in substantially
the same way, however, Bor-land had to copy the Lotus menu command
hierarchy. Thus the Lotus 1-2-3 code is not a uncopyrightable
“method of operation.”
print(lotus.holdings[11])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <Lotus 1-2-3> was a method of operation
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <Lotus 1-2-3> was a computer program
      the Fact it is false that the precise formulation of <Lotus 1-2-3>'s code was necessary for it to work
    DESPITE:
      the Fact that computer code was necessary for <Lotus 1-2-3> to 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)

Oracle v. Google, 750 F.3d 1339 (2014)

By statute, a work must be “original” to qualify for copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).

print(oracle.holdings[0])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> 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)


Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work
was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from
other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of
creativity.
print(oracle.holdings[1])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was an original work
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was independently created by the author, as opposed to copied from other works
      the Fact that <the Java API> 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)


Copyright protection extends only to the expression of an idea — not
to the underlying idea itself...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.
print(oracle.holdings[2])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was an original work
      the Fact that <the Java API> was the expression of an idea
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was an idea
    DESPITE:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a scene a faire
    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 ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


The literal elements of a computer program are the source code and
object code.
print(oracle.holdings[3])
print("\n")
print(oracle.holdings[4])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a literal element of <the Java language>
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was the source code of <the Java language>
    GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
      "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)
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a literal element of <the Java language>
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was the object code of <the Java language>
    GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
      "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)
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


It is well established that copyright protection can extend to both
literal and non-literal elements of a computer program. See Altai
982 F.2d at 702.
print(oracle.holdings[5])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a literal element of <the Java language>
    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 ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


The non-literal components of a computer program include, among
other things, the program’s sequence, structure, and organization,
as well as the program’s user interface.
print(oracle.holdings[6])
print("\n")
print(oracle.holdings[7])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a non-literal element of <the Java language>
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was the sequence, structure, and organization of <the Java language>
    GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
      "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)
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a non-literal element of <the Java language>
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was the user interface of <the Java language>
    GIVEN the ENACTMENTS:
      "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)
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


It is well established that copyright protection can extend to both
literal and non-literal elements of a computer program...As
discussed below, whether the non-literal elements of a program “are
protected depends on whether, on the particular facts of each case,
the component in question qualifies as an expression of an idea, or
an idea itself.”
print(oracle.holdings[8])
print("\n")
print(oracle.holdings[9])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a non-literal element of <the Java language>
      the Fact that <the Java API> was the expression of an idea
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was an idea
    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 ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a non-literal element of <the Java language>
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was the expression of an idea
      the Fact that <the Java API> was an idea
    GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)
    DESPITE 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)


On appeal, Oracle argues that the district court’s reliance on Lotus
is misplaced because it is distinguishable on its facts and is
inconsistent with Ninth Circuit law. We agree. First, while the
defendant in Lotus did not copy any of the underlying code, Google
concedes that it copied portions of Oracle’s declaring source code
verbatim. Second, the Lotus court found that the commands at issue
there (copy, print, etc.) were not creative, but it is undisputed
here that the declaring code and the structure and organization of
the API packages are both creative and original. Finally, while the
court in Lotus found the commands at issue were “essential to
operating” the system, it is undisputed that— other than perhaps as
to the three core packages — Google did not need to copy the
structure, sequence, and organization of the Java API packages to
write programs in the Java language.:raw-latex:`nMore `importantly,
however, the Ninth Circuit has not adopted the court’s “method of
operation” reasoning in Lotus, and we conclude that it is
inconsistent with binding precedent.
print(oracle.holdings[10])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a set of application programming interface declarations
      the Fact that <the Java API> was an original work
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a non-literal element of <the Java language>
      the Fact that <the Java API> was the expression of an idea
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied
      the Fact that <the Java API> was creative
      the Fact that it was possible to use <the Java language> without copying <the Java API>
    DESPITE:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a method of operation
      the Fact that <the Java API> contained short phrases
      the Fact that <the Java API> became so popular that it was the industry standard
      the Fact that there was a preexisting community of programmers accustomed to using <the Java API>
    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)


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.
print(oracle.holdings[11])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <Google> infringed the copyright on <the Java API>
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a scene a faire
    DESPITE:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)
    DESPITE 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)


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...Under the merger doctrine, a court will not protect a
copyrighted work from infringement if the idea contained therein can
be expressed in only one way.
print(oracle.holdings[12])
print("\n")
print(oracle.holdings[13])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <Google> infringed the copyright on <the Java API>
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied
    DESPITE:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)
    DESPITE 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)


the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <Google> infringed the copyright on <the Java API>
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
      absence of the Fact that <the Java API> was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied
      absence of the Fact that <the Java API> was a scene a faire
    GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)
    DESPITE 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)

A Missing Holding

The following text represents a rule posited by the Oracle court, but it’s not currently possible to create a corresponding Holding object, because AuthoritySpoke doesn’t yet include “Argument” objects.

Google responds that Oracle waived its right to assert copyrightability based on the 7,000 lines of declaring code by failing “to object to instructions and a verdict form that effectively eliminated that theory from the case.” Appellee Br. 67…We find that Oracle did not waive arguments based on Google’s literal copying of the declaring code.

Regardless of when the analysis occurs, we conclude that merger does not apply on the record before us…We have recognized, however, applying Ninth Circuit law, that the “unique arrangement of computer program expression … does not merge with the process so long as alternate expressions are available.”…The evidence showed that Oracle had “unlimited options as to the selection and arrangement of the 7000 lines Google copied.”…This was not a situation where Oracle was selecting among preordained names and phrases to create its packages.

print(oracle.holdings[14])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <Sun Microsystems> created <the Java API>
      the Fact that when creating <the Java API>, <Sun Microsystems> could have selected and arranged its names and phrases in unlimited different ways
    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 ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


the relevant question for copyright-ability purposes is not whether
the work at issue contains short phrases — as literary works often
do — but, rather, whether those phrases are creative.
print(oracle.holdings[15])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a literary work
      the Fact that the short phrases in <the Java API> was creative
    DESPITE:
      the Fact that <the Java API> contained short phrases
    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 idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (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)


In the computer context, “the scene a faire doctrine denies
protection to program elements that are dictated by external factors
such as ‘the mechanical specifications of the computer on which a
particular program is intended to run’ or ‘widely accepted
programming practices within the computer industry. Like merger, the
focus of the scenes a faire doctrine is on the circumstances
presented to the creator, not the copier.
print(oracle.holdings[16])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was a scene a faire
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was an element of <the Java language>
      the Fact that the creation of <the Java API> was dictated by external factors such as the mechanical specifications of the computer on which <the Java language> was intended to run or widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry
    GIVEN the ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)
    DESPITE 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)


Specifically, we find that Lotus is inconsistent with Ninth Circuit
case law recognizing that the structure, sequence, and organization
of a computer program is eligible for copyright protection where it
qualifies as an expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself.
print(oracle.holdings[17])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
      the Fact that <the Java API> was the structure, sequence, and organization of <the Java language>
      the Fact that <the Java API> was the expression of an idea
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was an idea
    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 ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


an original work — even one that serves a function — is entitled to
copyright protection as long as the author had multiple ways to
express the underlying idea. Section 102(b) does not, as Google
seems to suggest, automatically deny copyright protection to
elements of a computer program that are functional.
print(oracle.holdings[18])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was an original work
      the Fact that <Sun Microsystems> was the author of <the Java API>
      the Fact that when creating <the Java API>, <Sun Microsystems> had multiple ways to express its underlying idea
    DESPITE:
      the Fact that <the Java API> served a function
    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 ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)


Until either the Supreme Court or Congress tells us otherwise, we
are bound to respect the Ninth Circuit’s decision to afford software
programs protection under the copyright laws. We thus decline any
invitation to declare that protection of software programs should be
the domain of patent law, and only patent law.
print(oracle.holdings[19])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <the Java language> was a computer program
    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 ENACTMENT:
      "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/b)