U.S. Supreme Court No Help to Google in API Copying Case

Back in October 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to take up the appeal for Oracle v. Google (Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.). This case offered the Supreme Court a chance to weigh in on the IP protections afforded software. After receiving the requested input from the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court opted to follow the Solicitor General’s suggestion and denied the writ of certiorari. This leaves standing the Federal Circuit Court’s decision that the “declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages” were entitled to copyright protection.

The Solicitor General’s recommendation was premised on several factors included a rejection of a distinction between declaring code and implementing code and an assertion that many of the anti-copyright arguments presented would be better handled as a matter of fair use.

Many of the arguments presented in support of the notion that APIs should not be covered by copyright included an implicit distinction between declaring code and other elements of the software. The Solicitor General’s brief did away with this idea by using a statutory interpretation of ‘computer program’ to include both declaring code and implementing code. The brief goes as far as to state: “Nothing about the declaring code at issue here materially distinguishes it from other computer code”.

The argument for denying copyright for declaring code asserted that declaring code was a functional aspect of the program designed to perform a process and that copyright protections could not extend to cover such aspects. By doing away with the distinction between declaring code and other parts of the program, the Solicitor General’s brief relies on the express intent of the statute to provide copyright protection for computer programs despite their functional aspects. This bolsters the proposition that APIs are copyright eligible as they are simply another piece of the program. Thus, even though the declaring code may have functional aspects it is still entitled to copyright protection like any other computer program or portion thereof.

The Solicitor General’s brief provides some guidance as to further consideration of APIs. The brief notes that arguments directed to interoperability should be directed to a fair use defense rather than attempting to carve an exclusion from copyright protection. However, the discussion notes that in this case the copying was not done so that the Android platform was interoperable with the Java platform or programs. Instead, the copying was done “so that programmers familiar with the Java platform would be able to switch over to the Android platform without having to learn entirely new commands for invoking commonly used methods” which would appear to undermine any fair use claim based on interoperability.

The Supreme Court in refusing the appeal has provided the opportunity for a more suitable case to come before it which may allow the Court to better address the underlying distinctions between copyright and patent protections available to software. While some would have preferred a clear signal from the Court at this time, the lessons learned from the Solicitor General’s brief may provide a potential roadmap as to how to avoid some of the pitfalls from Oracle v. Google. Although Google still has the chance to argue their fair use defenses in the lower courts this case will likely be focused on copyright issues from here on out.

What do you mean I can't display the picture I bought? Photographs and Copyrights

So you have a photograph which you purchased some years ago of a beautiful early morning harbor view.  This photo would be perfect as a wall display in your commercial real estate office on the waterfront.  You have an enlargement made of the photograph and hang it in your office for all to see.

Not long after the picture is put on display, you receive an email from an attorney representing the photographer who asserts that you have no right to publicly display the photograph or to make an enlarged version of it, and asks that you immediately take down the photograph and destroy it. 

Is such a demand legitimate?    Yes it is.              

The photograph you purchased is subject to copyright protection which has a variety of associated rights.   Your purchase of the photograph provides ownership of the physical copy but not the associated copyright.  The purchase of the photograph does not give you any rights of copyright unless specifically conveyed in a written agreement between you and the copyright owner, in this case the photographer. 

As the owner of the photograph, you may display the photograph for your own pleasure, such as display in your home or private office.  But public display of the photograph is a right of copyright reserved to the copyright owner unless separately contracted for.

What to do now?  Work out a settlement with the photographer which may entail paying some amount for the right to commercially display the photograph.  Or comply with the demand to take down the photograph and destroy the copy.

Photographs, works of art and other copyrightable works are protected by copyright from the moment they are created.  The photographer has the exclusive right to reproduce his or her photograph and to control use of the photograph.  Without permission from the photographer (or other copyright owner), you cannot copy (in hard copy or electronic form), sell, distribute, publicly display or create derivative works of the photograph.

If you are contracting with a photographer to create photos for you, you should be mindful of the rights of copyright you wish to acquire in addition to a physical copy of the photograph.  You may wish to acquire all rights of copyright or just some.  It is often easier to negotiate a transfer of copyright interest at the time of engaging the photographer when he or she is more likely to be eager for the business, rather than later when circumstances may make the transfer of copyright less appealing.

The situation is similar for other works of art.  Laws in other countries are generally similar but of course individual country laws must be reviewed in specific situations.

If you acquire a photograph from a stock photo organization, the rights for use of that photograph are usually specified in the terms of sale or license.

There can be many nuances to transactions involving photographs and other artistic or visual works, and therefore prior consultation with an experienced IP attorney would be prudent.

IP Owners Beware! A Con Artist May Be Behind that Official-Looking Letter

The World Wide Web promised an infrastructure for the free flow of information.  For Intellectual Property (IP) owners, this meant free, instant access to patent and trademark administrative details and status.  Unfortunately, the same types of people who call at inconvenient hours, professing to be from the “Revenue Service,” and demanding payment of a (fictitious) delinquent debt are using the same Web resources to target patent and trademark owners.  Despite efforts aimed at raising awareness in the IP community, scammers continue to produce sophisticated, official-looking communications that sometimes succeed in trapping the unwary.

Trademark owners have been the targets of several types of fraudulent schemes.  Here are some of the more common ones:

“Greetings from [a foreign country].  We have been asked by company ABC to register the mark XYZ as their brand name and their domain name.  But, we noticed XYZ is similar to your brand name. Let us know if you gave them permission.” 

Company ABC is most likely fictitious.  If you write back saying you did not give ABC permission to pursue these registrations, you will be given the opportunity to pursue domain name and trademark applications in that country.  Even if legitimate filings result, you may be paying excessive fees.

“Greetings from the United States Trademark Registration Office (USTRO).  Upon payment of this invoice for $395, we will register your trademark XYZ with the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.  In addition, we will monitor your mark with our proprietary search engine and alert you to possible third party infringement.  We look forward to your prompt payment.”

“USTRO” sounds a lot like “USPTO,’ the acronym for the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  While the USPTO is a U.S. government agency, the USTRO is a private firm in Los Angeles offering expensive and possibly unnecessary registration services.  Variations of this scam have come from sources such as the “United State Trademark Agency” or the “Trademark Monitoring Service” with offers to monitor the progress of your trademark application for you or to provide trademark renewal reminder services, neither of which have much value and would be duplicative of the efforts of your trademark counsel.

“You are cordially invited to have us list your trademark in the TM REGISTER / The International Trade Marks and Service Marks Catalog.”

This is an invitation to extract a hefty sum from your bank account in exchange for the opportunity to include your trademark in a publication that no one looks at and that has no value.

On the patent side, there have been similar efforts:

“The international patent application cited above has been Published in the WIPO Gazette.  This form is an offer to register your international patent application in our internet database and access to all database services.”

This offer appears in the form of a very official-looking invoice from “World Patent & Trademark Services,” or “World Patent & Trademark Organization,” or “World Intelligent Property Office,” etc.  The latter is particularly devious because of its similarity to the legitimate “World Intellectual Property Office” (WIPO).  When you file an international patent application, it does get published in the WIPO Gazette, so that part of their letter is true.  In fact, that’s where they got the administrative details of your international patent application that may be printed in their letter, perhaps along with the abstract or a representative figure from your application.  It may even have a fancy seal embossed into it.  Those who are taken in by this “offer” may have their international patent application included in a database that no one looks at, in exchange for hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

We’ve seen fewer attempts to take advantage of U.S. patent applicants with similar offers, but vigilance is always called for. 

The bottom line: if you’re in doubt, contact your IP attorney with any suspicious correspondence - he or she will be able to quickly assess its validity and help you avoid such costly and valueless schemes.