paint-brush
Oracle Argues Court Erred in Applying the Short Phrases Doctrine in Java Copyright Lawsuit by@legalpdf

Oracle Argues Court Erred in Applying the Short Phrases Doctrine in Java Copyright Lawsuit

by Legal PDF: Tech Court CasesOctober 11th, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

The district court erred in applying the short phrases doctrine to find the declaring code not copyrightable.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail
Mention Thumbnail
featured image - Oracle Argues Court Erred in Applying the Short Phrases Doctrine in Java Copyright Lawsuit
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

Oracle vs. Google (2014) Court Filing, retrieved on May 9, 2014, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is part 9 of 16.

b. Short Phrases

The district court also found that Oracle’s declaring code consists of uncopyrightable short phrases. Specifically, the court concluded that, “while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 976.


The district court is correct that “[w]ords and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans” are not subject to copyright protection. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a). The court failed to recognize, however, that the relevant question for copyrightability purposes is not whether the work at issue contains short phrases—as literary works often do—but, rather, whether those phrases are creative. See Soc’y of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Gregory, 689 F.3d 29, 52 (1st Cir. 2012) (noting that “not all short phrases will automatically be deemed uncopyrightable”); see also 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.01[B] (2013) (“[E]ven a short phrase may command copyright protection if it exhibits sufficient creativity.”). And, by dissecting the individual lines of declaring code at issue into short phrases, the district court further failed to recognize that an original combination of elements can be copyrightable. See Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Scientific Commc’ns, 118 F.3d 955, 964 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that, in Feist, “the Court made quite clear that a compilation of nonprotectible elements can enjoy copyright protection even though its constituent elements do not”).


By analogy, the opening of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities is nothing but a string of short phrases. Yet no one could contend that this portion of Dickens’ work is unworthy of copyright protection because it can be broken into those shorter constituent components. The question is not whether a short phrase or series of short phrases can be extracted from the work, but whether the manner in which they are used or strung together exhibits creativity.


Although the district court apparently focused on individual lines of code, Oracle is not seeking copyright protection for a specific short phrase or word. Instead, the portion of declaring code at issue is 7,000 lines, and Google’s own “Java guru” conceded that there can be “creativity and artistry even in a single method declaration.” Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 20,970. Because Oracle “exercised creativity in the selection and arrangement” of the method declarations when it created the API packages and wrote the relevant declaring code, they contain protectable expression that is entitled to copyright protection. See Atari, 975 F.2d at 840; see also 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103 (recognizing copyright protection for “compilations” which are defined as work that is “selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship”). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in applying the short phrases doctrine to find the declaring code not copyrightable.



Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case 10-CV-3561 retrieved on September 22, 2023, from law.justia.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.