

Supreme Court seek Obama administration views on Google-Oracle dispute - drallison
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/12/us-usa-court-copyright-idUSKBN0KL1IB20150112

======
drallison
This dispute centers upon whether APIs can be copyrighted. This case has broad
implications for everyone who builds and uses software. See
[https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google](https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-
v-google) for a bit more background.

------
tzs
I'm confused about how precedent works in this kind of case.

Generally, the precedent that a particular court must follow in a case is the
rulings of courts that its ruling in the case can be appealed to. So, a
California district court has to follow 9th Circuit precedent in a copyright
case, because it will be the 9th Circuit appeals court that gets the case on
appeal. The California district court does not have to follow, say, 2nd
Circuit precedent, because the case will not ever reach the 2nd Circuit
appeals court.

For a patent case, the path is a little different. All patent appeals go to
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rather then to the Circuit
appeals courts. Thus, a California district court hearing a patent case
follows CAFC precedent, because that's where the case will go on appeal.

The Oracle-Google case is _both_ copyright _and_ patent. Because of the patent
aspect, the appeal from the district court went to the CAFC. Although a
copyright appeal would not go to CAFC on its own, CAFC is allowed to handle it
when it is part of a patent case. Thus, we end up with the CAFC issuing a
copyright ruling.

What I do not understand is which courts have to take the CAFC copyright
ruling as precedent.

Suppose I sue someone over copyright in California, and suppose there are no
patent issues anywhere near the case...it's just a pure copyright case. The
appeal then will go to the 9th Circuit appeals court, not to CAFC, so does the
district court in this case have to follow CAFC's Oracle ruling? Or do they
look strictly to what the 9th Circuit has said?

Given the theoretical basis for precedent, I'd expect that the district court
follows the 9th Circuit.

If that's the case, suppose that the defendant would really prefer to operate
under CAFC copyright precedent rather than 9th Circuit copyright precedent.
Could he try to add a patent counterclaim, so that the appeal would go to
CAFC, and so the district court would have to follow CAFC precedent? Would I
have a reasonable chance under FRCP Rule 42 to ask for separate trials on the
copyright and patent issues?

------
Oletros
The Supreme Court also seek DoJ views on Google vs Vederi, the Google Street
View case that the Appeals court reversed

------
angdis
I fail to see what Oracle gets out of all this aggression other than an
interminable legal fight and associated expenses, the scorn of developers
everywhere, and a _very_ iffy future pay-off. What is the motivation here?

~~~
debacle
Money. What else would the motivation be? This is Oracle we're talking about.

~~~
angdis
OK, but they're already making money. And anyway it is far from certain if
they will "win" and moreover how much they'll even get out of it. It is less
likely to be successful than a "slip-and-fall" scam. Surely, there is more to
it?

------
th0br0
Does anybody else find it disturbing that the Supreme Court, which, as the
head of the legislative, should be a fully independent entity, defers its
decision of whether it should become active to the head of the
executive/judicative? So much about the separation of powers...

~~~
jaredhansen
1) They aren't deferring the decision of whether to become active; they're
asking the administration to provide its thoughts. They aren't bound to do
what the administration says, but it's not unprecedented or even that odd.

2) Not to be pedantic but for the benefit of others who may not be aware: the
Supreme Court is the highest judicial body, not the head of the legislative
body. Congress is legislative, the courts are judicial, and the Obama
administration is the current incarnation of the executive branch.

~~~
th0br0
Whoops, mixed the two words up there... sorry about that. I just read the
article as the decision being a bit more conditionally then.

