.. _example_holdings: ``Example Holdings`` ====================================== This Appendix will list 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 ``Opinion``\ s that provide support for each ``Holding``, but that's currently not fully implemented. To find the full text of the opinions, look in the example\_data/opinions/ folder. 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." .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[0]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT that the EXCLUSIVE way to reach the fact that infringed the copyright in is 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) .. To, show ownership of a valid copyright and therefore satisfy Feist’s first prong, a plaintiff must prove that the work as a whole is original and that the plaintiff complied with applicable statutory formalities. .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[1]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY ALWAYS impose the RESULT: absence of the Fact that was copyrightable GIVEN: absence of the Fact 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) .. 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. .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[2]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that was copyrightable GIVEN: the Evidence OF: the Exhibit in the FORM of certificate of copyright registration INDICATING: the Fact that registered a copyright covering absence of the Fact it is false that 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... .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[3]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that copied in creating GIVEN: the Evidence INDICATING: the Fact that copied in creating 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). .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[4]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that copied in creating GIVEN: the Evidence INDICATING: the Fact that had access to the Fact that published the Evidence INDICATING: the Fact that was very similar to 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. .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[5]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that copied constituent elements of that were original GIVEN: the Fact that copied in creating the Fact that the copying of in 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.” .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[6]) .. code-block:: none 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) .. 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. .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[7]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that was a method of operation GIVEN: the Fact that was a computer program the Fact that provided the means by which users controlled and operated the Fact that without , users would not have been able to access and control, or indeed make use of, ’s functional capabilities the Fact that for another computer program to by operated in substantially the same way as , the other program would have to copy DESPITE: the Fact that the developers of made some expressive choices in choosing and arranging the terms in 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. .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[8]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that was a method of operation GIVEN: the Fact that was the means by which a person operated DESPITE: the Fact it is false that 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.” .. code:: python print(lotus.holdings[9]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact it is false that was a method of operation GIVEN: the Fact that was a computer program the Fact it is false that the precise formulation of 's code was necessary for it to work DESPITE: the Fact that computer code was necessary for 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). .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[0]) .. code-block:: none 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) .. 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[1]) .. code-block:: none 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) .. 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[2]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that was copyrightable GIVEN: the Fact that was an original work the Fact that was the expression of an idea the Fact it is false that was an idea DESPITE: the Fact that was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied the Fact that 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[3]) print("\n") print(oracle.holdings[4]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the RESULT: the Fact that was a literal element of GIVEN: the Fact that was a computer program the Fact that was the source code of 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 was a literal element of GIVEN: the Fact that was a computer program the Fact that was the object code of 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[5]) .. code-block:: none 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 literal element of 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[6]) print("\n") print(oracle.holdings[7]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the RESULT: the Fact that was a non-literal element of GIVEN: the Fact that was a computer program the Fact that was the sequence, structure, and organization of 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 was a non-literal element of GIVEN: the Fact that was a computer program the Fact that was the user interface of 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.” .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[8]) print("\n") print(oracle.holdings[9]) .. code-block:: none 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 non-literal element of the Fact that was the expression of an idea the Fact it is false that 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 was copyrightable GIVEN: the Fact that was a computer program the Fact that was a non-literal element of the Fact it is false that was the expression of an idea the Fact that 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. More 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[10]) .. code-block:: none 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) .. 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[11]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact it is false that infringed the copyright on GIVEN: the Fact that was a scene a faire DESPITE: the Fact that 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[12]) print("\n") print(oracle.holdings[13]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact it is false that infringed the copyright on GIVEN: the Fact that was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied DESPITE: the Fact that 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 infringed the copyright on GIVEN: the Fact that was copyrightable absence of the Fact that was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied absence of the Fact that 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[14]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MUST SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact it is false that was essentially the only way to express the idea that it embodied GIVEN: the Fact that created the Fact that when creating , 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[15]) .. code-block:: none 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 literary work the Fact that the short phrases in was creative DESPITE: the Fact that 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[16]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that was a scene a faire GIVEN: the Fact that was a computer program the Fact that was an element of the Fact that the creation of was dictated by external factors such as the mechanical specifications of the computer on which 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[17]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that was copyrightable GIVEN: the Fact that was a computer program the Fact that was the structure, sequence, and organization of the Fact that was the expression of an idea the Fact it is false that 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[18]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MUST ALWAYS impose the RESULT: the Fact that was copyrightable GIVEN: the Fact that was an original work the Fact that was the author of the Fact that when creating , had multiple ways to express its underlying idea DESPITE: the Fact that 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. .. code:: python print(oracle.holdings[19]) .. code-block:: none the Holding to ACCEPT the Rule that the court MAY SOMETIMES impose the RESULT: the Fact that was copyrightable GIVEN: the Fact that 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)