{"title":"Mozilla, Mapbox, Medium, Patreon, Etsy和Wikimedia在Google诉Oracle一案中的法庭之友简报(Cert. Petition 2019)","authors":"J. Schultz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3344990","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Amicus Brief was filed in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Google v. Oracle in support of Google's 2019 petition for certiorari. \n \nCompetition and innovation are two principles at the heart of a healthy internet and the field of software development that fuels it. For decades, software engineers have relied heavily on reuse and reimplementation of functional protocols, such as the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) in this case, to create competing alternatives to incumbent industry players and new markets for development without fear of copyright infringement. In accord with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), and the plain language of 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2012), the software industry has flourished utilizing this approach to make internet and software ecosystems more accessible, affordable, diverse, and robust. \n \nBy reversing this rule in the context of APIs, the Federal Circuit upended decades of industry practice and the well-established expectations of developers, investors, and consumers. API reimplementation is a common theme among developers of all sizes — from those wishing to create entirely new platforms to those wishing to develop on them. The court below heedlessly unraveled this reasonably predictive rule and set of reliable norms that are critical to software coders for understanding what is appropriate to carry over from one project to another and what is not. This is especially true for individual coders, small startups, or nonprofit software projects, who often lack legal counsel or large financial reserves to defend themselves against unwarranted litigation. \n \nIn this brief, Amici urge the Court to grant Google’s petition for certiorari in order to correct this misreading of copyright law. Specifically, Amici wish to highlight two fundamental concerns with the lower court’s opinion. First, the court’s dramatic expansion of copyright protection to include APIs, which Amici believe are not copyrightable under U.S. law, stifles innovation and competition by privileging powerful incumbents and creating artificial barriers to entry for new players and innovators where none existed before. Second, the Federal Circuit’s rejection of the fair use doctrine stands to undermine not only reimplementation and reuse of APIs, but also other valuable software engineering practices, such as reverse engineering, interoperability, and the creation of competing platforms, as well as innovations in data analytics, search engines, and many other groundbreaking advancements. Specifically, by creating irreconcilable conflicts with bedrock software fair use principles that have set the norms of engineering practice for over two decades, the Federal Circuit has opened the door to re-litigating many status quo software engineering practices — practices that open source projects and small startups depend on every day to produce new platforms, programs, features, and interfaces. \n \nThis brief was prepared with the help of NYU Law clinical students Iman Charania and Michael Pizzi under the supervision of Professor Jason Schultz.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brief of Amici Curiae Mozilla, Mapbox, Medium, Patreon, Etsy, and Wikimedia in Google v. Oracle (Cert. Petition 2019)\",\"authors\":\"J. Schultz\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3344990\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Amicus Brief was filed in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Google v. Oracle in support of Google's 2019 petition for certiorari. \\n \\nCompetition and innovation are two principles at the heart of a healthy internet and the field of software development that fuels it. For decades, software engineers have relied heavily on reuse and reimplementation of functional protocols, such as the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) in this case, to create competing alternatives to incumbent industry players and new markets for development without fear of copyright infringement. In accord with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), and the plain language of 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2012), the software industry has flourished utilizing this approach to make internet and software ecosystems more accessible, affordable, diverse, and robust. \\n \\nBy reversing this rule in the context of APIs, the Federal Circuit upended decades of industry practice and the well-established expectations of developers, investors, and consumers. API reimplementation is a common theme among developers of all sizes — from those wishing to create entirely new platforms to those wishing to develop on them. The court below heedlessly unraveled this reasonably predictive rule and set of reliable norms that are critical to software coders for understanding what is appropriate to carry over from one project to another and what is not. This is especially true for individual coders, small startups, or nonprofit software projects, who often lack legal counsel or large financial reserves to defend themselves against unwarranted litigation. \\n \\nIn this brief, Amici urge the Court to grant Google’s petition for certiorari in order to correct this misreading of copyright law. Specifically, Amici wish to highlight two fundamental concerns with the lower court’s opinion. First, the court’s dramatic expansion of copyright protection to include APIs, which Amici believe are not copyrightable under U.S. law, stifles innovation and competition by privileging powerful incumbents and creating artificial barriers to entry for new players and innovators where none existed before. Second, the Federal Circuit’s rejection of the fair use doctrine stands to undermine not only reimplementation and reuse of APIs, but also other valuable software engineering practices, such as reverse engineering, interoperability, and the creation of competing platforms, as well as innovations in data analytics, search engines, and many other groundbreaking advancements. Specifically, by creating irreconcilable conflicts with bedrock software fair use principles that have set the norms of engineering practice for over two decades, the Federal Circuit has opened the door to re-litigating many status quo software engineering practices — practices that open source projects and small startups depend on every day to produce new platforms, programs, features, and interfaces. \\n \\nThis brief was prepared with the help of NYU Law clinical students Iman Charania and Michael Pizzi under the supervision of Professor Jason Schultz.\",\"PeriodicalId\":125544,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3344990\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3344990","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这份法庭之友简报是在谷歌诉甲骨文案中向美国最高法院提交的,以支持谷歌2019年的调卷请求。竞争和创新是健康互联网和为其提供动力的软件开发领域的两个核心原则。几十年来,软件工程师在很大程度上依赖于功能协议的重用和重新实现,例如本例中的应用程序编程接口(Application Programming interface, api),以创建与现有行业参与者和新开发市场相竞争的替代方案,而不必担心侵犯版权。根据最高法院在Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99(1879)一案中的裁决,以及17 U.S.C.§102(b)(2012)的通俗语言,软件行业利用这种方法使互联网和软件生态系统更易于访问、负担得起、多样化和强大,从而蓬勃发展。通过在api的背景下推翻这一规则,联邦巡回法院颠覆了数十年的行业实践以及开发者、投资者和消费者的既定期望。API重新实现是各种规模的开发人员的共同主题——从希望创建全新平台的开发人员到希望在其上进行开发的开发人员。下级法院轻率地推翻了这一合理的预测规则和一套可靠的规范,这些规范对于软件编码人员理解什么适合从一个项目转移到另一个项目,什么不适合,至关重要。对于个人程序员、小型初创公司或非营利软件项目来说尤其如此,他们通常缺乏法律顾问或大量的财务储备来保护自己免受无理的诉讼。在本摘要中,Amici敦促法院批准谷歌的调卷请求,以纠正对版权法的误读。具体来说,Amici希望强调对下级法院意见的两个基本关切。首先,最高法院将版权保护范围大幅扩大至api (Amici认为api在美国法律下不受版权保护),从而扼杀了创新和竞争,为强大的现有企业提供了特权,并人为地为新参与者和创新者设置了准入障碍。其次,联邦巡回法院对合理使用原则的拒绝不仅会破坏api的重新实现和重用,还会破坏其他有价值的软件工程实践,如逆向工程、互操作性、竞争平台的创建,以及数据分析、搜索引擎和许多其他突破性进展方面的创新。具体来说,通过与作为工程实践规范的软件合理使用原则产生不可调和的冲突,联邦巡回法院打开了重新起诉许多现状软件工程实践的大门——开源项目和小型初创公司每天都依赖于这些实践来产生新的平台、程序、功能和接口。这份摘要是在纽约大学法律临床专业学生伊曼·查拉尼亚和迈克尔·皮兹的帮助下在杰森·舒尔茨教授的指导下编写的。
Brief of Amici Curiae Mozilla, Mapbox, Medium, Patreon, Etsy, and Wikimedia in Google v. Oracle (Cert. Petition 2019)
This Amicus Brief was filed in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Google v. Oracle in support of Google's 2019 petition for certiorari.
Competition and innovation are two principles at the heart of a healthy internet and the field of software development that fuels it. For decades, software engineers have relied heavily on reuse and reimplementation of functional protocols, such as the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) in this case, to create competing alternatives to incumbent industry players and new markets for development without fear of copyright infringement. In accord with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), and the plain language of 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2012), the software industry has flourished utilizing this approach to make internet and software ecosystems more accessible, affordable, diverse, and robust.
By reversing this rule in the context of APIs, the Federal Circuit upended decades of industry practice and the well-established expectations of developers, investors, and consumers. API reimplementation is a common theme among developers of all sizes — from those wishing to create entirely new platforms to those wishing to develop on them. The court below heedlessly unraveled this reasonably predictive rule and set of reliable norms that are critical to software coders for understanding what is appropriate to carry over from one project to another and what is not. This is especially true for individual coders, small startups, or nonprofit software projects, who often lack legal counsel or large financial reserves to defend themselves against unwarranted litigation.
In this brief, Amici urge the Court to grant Google’s petition for certiorari in order to correct this misreading of copyright law. Specifically, Amici wish to highlight two fundamental concerns with the lower court’s opinion. First, the court’s dramatic expansion of copyright protection to include APIs, which Amici believe are not copyrightable under U.S. law, stifles innovation and competition by privileging powerful incumbents and creating artificial barriers to entry for new players and innovators where none existed before. Second, the Federal Circuit’s rejection of the fair use doctrine stands to undermine not only reimplementation and reuse of APIs, but also other valuable software engineering practices, such as reverse engineering, interoperability, and the creation of competing platforms, as well as innovations in data analytics, search engines, and many other groundbreaking advancements. Specifically, by creating irreconcilable conflicts with bedrock software fair use principles that have set the norms of engineering practice for over two decades, the Federal Circuit has opened the door to re-litigating many status quo software engineering practices — practices that open source projects and small startups depend on every day to produce new platforms, programs, features, and interfaces.
This brief was prepared with the help of NYU Law clinical students Iman Charania and Michael Pizzi under the supervision of Professor Jason Schultz.