Copyright protects expressive works in tangible form. So, a computer language can't be protected because it is an abstraction. But the source code for any implementation of that language can. Here, Oracle is not claiming a copyright in the Java language, nor is it claiming that Google copied any source code (except very insubstantial elements). Oracle claims that the API is protected by copyright and that Google infringed various API elements by copying the structure, etc. in spite of its having done so through a clean-room development. Therefore, Oracle's ultimate copyright claims in the case
all turn on its assertion that it can sue upon only a a subset (the API pieces) of the overall copyrighted work (Java) and not the whole work.
The other important piece of the analysis is as follows: copyright protection applies automatically as a work is created and takes a tangible means of expression; however, you cannot sue for infringement of a copyright work unless it is registered as a federal copyright with the Copyright Office.
The Google motion contends that Oracle registered the entire work (Java) and not any subset of that work. Oracle claims it was registered as a "collective work" and that this gives it the right to sue on a component part of the work only. In its motion, Google says that the work was not registered as a collective work and that Oracle therefore can't - as a matter of law - sue over a component piece only.
The motion turns on technical issues but they are ones that would seem to be verifiable one way or the other and thereafter tested under the legal standards just summarized. If the Java registration fails to meet the test, the Oracle loses on its copyright claims as a matter of law (meaning the judge tosses it and it doesn't even go to the jury).
This is truly a bombshell and appears to have caught the Oracle attorneys completely off stride. We will see what happens.
The other important piece of the analysis is as follows: copyright protection applies automatically as a work is created and takes a tangible means of expression; however, you cannot sue for infringement of a copyright work unless it is registered as a federal copyright with the Copyright Office.
The Google motion contends that Oracle registered the entire work (Java) and not any subset of that work. Oracle claims it was registered as a "collective work" and that this gives it the right to sue on a component part of the work only. In its motion, Google says that the work was not registered as a collective work and that Oracle therefore can't - as a matter of law - sue over a component piece only.
The motion turns on technical issues but they are ones that would seem to be verifiable one way or the other and thereafter tested under the legal standards just summarized. If the Java registration fails to meet the test, the Oracle loses on its copyright claims as a matter of law (meaning the judge tosses it and it doesn't even go to the jury).
This is truly a bombshell and appears to have caught the Oracle attorneys completely off stride. We will see what happens.