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 Opinions 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.”

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)

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.

print(lotus.holdings[1])
the Holding to ACCEPT
  the Rule that the court MAY ALWAYS impose the
    RESULT:
      absence of the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> was
      copyrightable
    GIVEN:
      absence of the Fact that <the Lotus menu command hierarchy> 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.

print(lotus.holdings[2])
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[3])
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[4])
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[5])
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[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)

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[7])
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[8])
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[9])
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. 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.

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)