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 Opinion
s. 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.
4. Importing and Exporting Legal Holdings¶
Now we can link some legal analysis to each majority Opinion
by
using Decision.posit()
or Opinion.posit()
.
The parameter we pass to this function is a Holding or list
of Holdings posited by the
Opinion. A Holding
is statement about whether a Rule
is or
is not valid law. A Holding may exist in the abstract, or it may be
posit()
ed by one or more Opinion
s,
which means that the
Opinion adopts the Holding as its own. An Opinion may posit
more than one Holding.
Sadly, the labor of creating data about Holdings falls mainly to the user rather than the computer, at least in this early version of AuthoritySpoke. AuthoritySpoke loads Holdings from structured descriptions that need to be created outside of AuthoritySpoke as JSON files.
An explanation of the interface for creating new Holding
objects can
be found in the Creating Holding Data guide.
For now, this introduction will rely on example JSON files that have
already been created. AuthoritySpoke should find them and convert them
to AuthoritySpoke objects when we call the
load_and_read_holdings()
function. If you pass in a regime
parameter, AuthoritySpoke can use
it to find and link the statutes or other Enactment
s cited in the
Holding
.
from authorityspoke.io.loaders import load_and_read_holdings
oracle_holdings = load_and_read_holdings("holding_oracle.json", regime=usa)
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)
You can also convert Holdings back to JSON using the dump
module.
from authorityspoke.io.dump import to_json
to_json(oracle_holdings[0])
'{"rule_valid": true, "generic": false, "rule": {"enactments_despite": [], "procedure": {"despite": [], "outputs": [{"absent": false, "standard_of_proof": null, "generic": false, "context_factors": [{"name": "the Java API", "generic": true, "plural": false, "type": "Entity"}], "name": "false the Java API was copyrightable", "predicate": {"quantity": null, "reciprocal": false, "comparison": "", "content": "{} was copyrightable", "truth": false}, "type": "Fact"}], "inputs": [{"absent": false, "standard_of_proof": null, "generic": false, "context_factors": [{"name": "the Java API", "generic": true, "plural": false, "type": "Entity"}], "name": "false the Java API was an original work", "predicate": {"quantity": null, "reciprocal": false, "comparison": "", "content": "{} was an original work", "truth": false}, "type": "Fact"}]}, "generic": false, "name": null, "enactments": [{"name": "copyright protection provision", "selector": {"prefix": "", "suffix": "", "exact": "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."}, "source": "/us/usc/t17/s102/a"}], "universal": false, "mandatory": true}, "decided": true, "exclusive": false}'
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 Holding
s 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
Enactment
s, 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”
Factor
s 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 Holding
s 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 Holding
s?
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.
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.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
Fact
s 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.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.
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]
.