Introduction

“Details, unnumbered, shifting, sharp, disordered, unchartable, jagged.”

Karl N. Llewellyn, The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study (1930).

AuthoritySpoke is the first open source legal authority automation tool.

This notebook will provide an overview of AuthoritySpoke’s most important features. AuthoritySpoke is still in an early alpha state, so many features have yet to be implemented, and some others still have limited functionality.

1. Importing the Package

If you want to use AuthoritySpoke in your own Python environment, be sure you have installed AuthoritySpoke using a command like pip install AuthoritySpoke on the command line. Visit the Python Package Index for more details.

With a Python environment activated, let’s import AuthoritySpoke.

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 Python documentation for help.

2. Downloading and Importing Decisions

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, then just go to section 2.1 below. 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 in section 2.1.

import os

CAP_API_KEY = os.environ['CAP_API_KEY']

Next we need to download some cases for analysis.

Let’s download Oracle America v. Google, 750 F.3d 1339 (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, 49 F.3d 807 (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.

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”. Let’s look at the API response.

from pprint import pprint
pprint(oracle_download)
{'citations': [{'cite': '750 F.3d 1339', 'type': 'official'}],
 'court': {'id': 8955,
           'name': 'United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit',
           'name_abbreviation': 'Fed. Cir.',
           'slug': 'fed-cir',
           'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/courts/fed-cir/'},
 'decision_date': '2014-05-09',
 'docket_number': 'Nos. 2013-1021, 2013-1022',
 'first_page': '1339',
 'frontend_url': 'https://cite.case.law/f3d/750/1339/',
 'id': 4066790,
 'jurisdiction': {'id': 39,
                  'name': 'U.S.',
                  'name_long': 'United States',
                  'slug': 'us',
                  'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/jurisdictions/us/',
                  'whitelisted': False},
 'last_page': '1381',
 'name': 'ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE INC., '
         'Defendant-Cross-Appellant',
 'name_abbreviation': 'Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.',
 'reporter': {'full_name': 'Federal Reporter 3d Series',
              'id': 933,
              'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/reporters/933/'},
 'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/cases/4066790/',
 'volume': {'barcode': '32044132273806',
            'url': 'https://api.case.law/v1/volumes/32044132273806/',
            'volume_number': '750'}}

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.

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.

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.

from authorityspoke.io.readers import read_decision

oracle = read_decision(oracle_download)

And take a look at the object we made.

print(oracle)
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (2014-05-09)
lotus = read_decision(lotus_download)
print(lotus)
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1995-03-09)

Finally, what should you do if you chose not to get an API key or were unable to create the Decision objects from downloaded data? Use the following commands to create the Decision 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.

2.1 Skip the Download and Load Decisions from File

# 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_and_read_decision

oracle = load_and_read_decision("oracle_h.json")
lotus = load_and_read_decision("lotus_h.json")

3. 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 still brittle and are currently only suitable for creating test data.

from authorityspoke.io.loaders import load_and_read_code

constitution = load_and_read_code("constitution.xml")
usc17 = load_and_read_code("usc17.xml")
cfr37 = load_and_read_code("cfr37.xml")

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.

from authorityspoke import Regime

usa = Regime()

usa.set_code(constitution)
usa.set_code(usc17)
usa.set_code(cfr37)

One judicial Decision can include multiple Opinions. The Lotus Decision has a concurring opinion as well as a majority opinion. Access the majority attribute of the Decision object to get the majority opinion.

print(lotus.majority)
majority Opinion by STAHL, Circuit Judge.

5. Linking Holdings to Opinions

If you want annotation anchors to link each Holding to a passage in the Opinion, you can use the load_holdings_with_anchors() method. The result is a tuple containing a list of Holdings, a list of text anchors for each Holding, and a dict linking text anchors to each Factor.

The posit() method will assign the Holdings to each majority Opinion. Here the asterisk is used to unpack the Holdings and text anchors as they’re passed to the posit method.

from authorityspoke.io.loaders import load_holdings_with_anchors

oracle_holdings_and_anchors = load_holdings_with_anchors("holding_oracle.json", regime=usa)
lotus_holdings_and_anchors = load_holdings_with_anchors("holding_lotus.json", regime=usa)

oracle.posit(*oracle_holdings_and_anchors)
lotus.posit(*lotus_holdings_and_anchors)

6. Viewing an Opinion’s Holdings

If you take a look in “holding_oracle.json”, you’ll see that it’s a list of 20 holdings. (You can verify this by checking how many times the string “inputs” appears in the file.)

Let’s make sure that the Decision.posit() method linked all of those holdings to our oracle Opinion object.

len(oracle.holdings)
20

Now let’s see the string representation of the AuthoritySpoke Holding object we created from the structured JSON we saw above.

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)

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 Holding to apply. So the two preconditions that must be present to apply this Holding 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 Holding 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 <the Java API> 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 <the Java API> was copyrightable.

We can also access just the inputs of a Holding, just the Enactments, etc.

print(oracle.holdings[0].inputs[0])
the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was an original work
print(oracle.holdings[0].enactments[0])
"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)

7. Generic Factors

The two instances of the phrase “the Java API” are in angle brackets to indicate that the Java API is a generic Entity mentioned in the Fact.

oracle.holdings[0].generic_factors
[Entity(name='the Java API', generic=True, plural=False)]

A generic Entity is “generic” in the sense that in the context of the Factor where the Entity appears, it could be replaced with some other generic Entity without changing the meaning of the Factor or the Rule where it appears.

Let’s illustrate this idea with the first Holding from the Lotus case.

print(lotus.holdings[0])
the Holding to ACCEPT that the EXCLUSIVE way to reach the fact that
<Borland International> infringed the copyright in <the Lotus menu
command hierarchy> is
  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)

What if we wanted to generalize this Holding 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 Holding, which were marked off in angle brackets in the string representation of the Holding.

lotus.holdings[0].generic_factors
[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 Holding from the Lotus case could have applied in the context of the Castle Rock Entertainment case, under 17 USC 102. We can check that by using the Holding.new_context() method to replace the generic factors from the Lotus Holding.

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.

print(seinfeld_holding)
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <Carol Publishing Group> infringed the copyright in
      <Seinfeld>
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <Seinfeld> was copyrightable
      the Fact that <Carol Publishing Group> copied constituent elements of
      <Seinfeld> 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 Holding.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.

lotus.holdings[0] == seinfeld_holding
False
lotus.holdings[0].means(seinfeld_holding)
True

8. 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].

copyright_provision = oracle.holdings[0].enactments[0]
print(copyright_provision)
"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 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.

usc = copyright_provision.code
print(usc)
USC Title 17

Next, let’s create a new Enactment object representing a shorter passage of text from the same Code.

from authorityspoke import Enactment
from anchorpoint import TextQuoteSelector

works_of_authorship_selector = TextQuoteSelector(

        exact=("Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title,"
                  + " in original works of authorship")
        )


works_of_authorship_clause = Enactment(
           source="/us/usc/t17/s102/a", selector=works_of_authorship_selector,
            code=usc
)

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 of the Holding object 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.

rule_with_shorter_enactment = oracle.holdings[0].evolve(
            {"enactments": works_of_authorship_clause}
        )
print(rule_with_shorter_enactment)
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" (Title 17, /us/usc/t17/s102/a)

Now let’s try comparing this new Holding with the real Holding from the Oracle case, to see whether one implies the other. When you’re comparing AuthoritySpoke objects, the greater than sign > invokes the __gt__() method, which means “implies, but is not equal to”.

rule_with_shorter_enactment > oracle.holdings[0]
True

You can also use the greater than or equal sign >= for the __ge__() method which means “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”.

rule_with_shorter_enactment <= oracle.holdings[0]
False

By comparing the string representations of the original Holding 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. Holdings that require fewer, or less specific, inputs are broader than Holdings that have more inputs, because there’s a larger set of situations where those Holdings 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.

9. 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 Fact that might tempt some courts to rule the other way.

print(lotus.holdings[6])
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)

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 Decision contradicts() the Lotus Decision. Let’s check.

oracle.contradicts(lotus)
True

That’s good to know, but we don’t want to take it on faith that a contradiction exists. Let’s use the Decision.explain_contradiction() method to find the contradictory Holdings posited by the Oracle and Lotus cases, and to generate a rudimentary explanation of why they contradict.

explanation = lotus.explain_contradiction(oracle)
print(explanation)
an Explanation of why there is a CONTRADICTION between
  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)
and
  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)
is that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> is like <the Java API>

That’s a really complicated holding! It’s a good thing AuthoritySpoke saved us the trouble of meticulously comparing the Holdings of each Decision one by one.

We can use Holding.explanations_contradiction() to generate all available “explanations” of why a contradiction is possible between lotus.holdings[6] and oracle.holdings[10]. Each Explanation includes a mapping that shows how the context factors of the Holding on the left can be mapped onto the Holding on the right. The explanation we’ve already been given is that these two Holdings contradict each other if you consider the Entity called ‘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 Explanation also appears in explanations. (The explain_contradiction() method returns only one one Explanation, but explanations_contradiction() returns all it can find.)

explanations = list(lotus.holdings[6].explanations_contradiction(oracle.holdings[10]))
len(explanations)
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[6] 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 Holdings. The Oracle opinion says that courts can sometimes accept the result the Fact that <the Java API> was copyrightable despite the Fact <the Java API> 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 mostly won’t recognize that Facts have the same meaning unless their Fact.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. And AuthoritySpoke can also compare Facts based on an optional numeric value that can come at the end of their content, but that feature isn’t demonstrated in this tutorial.

10. Adding Holdings to One Another

To try out the addition operation with Holding.__add__(), let’s load another case from the example_data folder.

feist = load_and_read_decision("feist_h.json")
feist.posit(*load_holdings_with_anchors("holding_feist.json", regime=usa))

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 that only original works are eligible for protection under the Copyright Act. This is a two-step analysis.

The first step results in the Fact it is false that a generic Entity was “an original work”:

print(feist.holdings[10])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <Rural's telephone listings> were an
      original work
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <Rural's telephone listings> 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” a generic Entity was “copyrightable”.

print(feist.holdings[3])
the Holding to ACCEPT that the EXCLUSIVE way to reach the fact that
<Rural's telephone directory> was copyrightable is
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <Rural's telephone directory> was copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <Rural's telephone directory> 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[10]) is applied, the second Holding (feist.holdings[3]) can be applied as well. That means the two Holdings can be added together to make a single Holding that captures the whole process.

listings_not_copyrightable = feist.holdings[10] + feist.holdings[3]
print(listings_not_copyrightable)
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <Rural's telephone listings> were an
      original work
      absence of the Fact that <Rural's telephone listings> were
      copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <Rural's telephone listings> 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[10] and the newly-created Holding listings_not_copyrightable is that listings_not_copyrightable has two Factors under its “RESULT”, not just one. Notice that it doesn’t matter that the two original Holdings reference different generic Entities (“Rural’s telephone directory” versus “Rural’s telephone listings”). Because they’re generic, they’re interchangeable for this purpose.

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[10].

print(feist.holdings[10] + oracle.holdings[0])
None

Can you guess why it’s not possible to add these two Holdings together? Here’s a hint:

feist.holdings[10].exclusive
False
oracle.holdings[0].exclusive
False
feist.holdings[3].exclusive
True

feist.holdings[10] and oracle.holdings[0] are both Holdings that purport to apply in only “SOME” cases where the specified inputs are present, while feist.holdings[3] purports to be the exclusive way to reach its output, which indicates a universal statement about “ALL” cases.

You can’t infer that there’s any situation where feist.holdings[10] 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 if feist.holdings[10] and feist.holdings[3] are both valid law, then we know they can both apply together in any of the “SOME” cases where feist.holdings[10] applies.

11. Set Operations with Holdings

In AuthoritySpoke, the union operation triggered by Holding.__or__() is different from the addition operation, and it usually gives different results.

result_of_adding = feist.holdings[10] + feist.holdings[3]
result_of_union = feist.holdings[10] | feist.holdings[3]

result_of_adding == result_of_union
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 0.3).

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.

{3, 4} | {1, 4, 5}
{1, 3, 4, 5}

The intersection operator returns a new set with only the elements that were in both original sets.

{3, 4} & {1, 4, 5}
{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 attribute Holding.universal, the operation will return None if it’s possible that the “SOME” cases where one of the original Holding 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.

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)
print(feist.holdings[2])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact it is false that <Rural's telephone directory> was
      copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      the Fact that <Rural's telephone directory> 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)
print(oracle.holdings[1] | feist.holdings[2])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      the Fact that <the Java API> was an original work
      the Fact it is false that <the Java API> was copyrightable
    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
      the Fact that <the Java API> 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 <the Java API> was an original work and the Fact it is false that <the Java API> 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.

12. Nuances of Meaning in Holdings

Let’s look at one more sentence from the Oracle majority Opinion, to 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 Holdings. 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. 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, but those concepts aren’t relevant to copyrightability, then 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 such anomalies?

The three Holding objects used to represent the sentence from the Oracle opinion can be found in the Example Holdings guide. They’re oracle.holdings[11] through oracle.holdings[13].