Insanity Wins As Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs

Oh, CAFC. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has spent decades fucking up patent law, and now they're doing their damndest to fuck up copyright law as well. In case you'd forgotten, the big case between Oracle and Google over whether or not Google infringed on Oracle's copyrights is still going on -- and it appears it will still be going on for quite a while longer, as CAFC this morning came down with a laughably stupid opinion, overturning the district court's jury verdict, which had said that Google's use of a few parts of Java's API was protected by fair use. That jury verdict was kind of silly in the first place, because the whole trial (the second one in the case) made little sense, as basically everyone outside of Oracle and the CAFC had previously understood (correctly) that APIs are simply not covered by copyright.

Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act says quite clearly:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

And an API is pretty clearly a procedure, process, system or method of operation -- it's just instructions on how to access certain elements, similar to a recipe. But, CAFC (who shouldn't be hearing this case in the first place) simply couldn't be bothered to comprehend what an API is, and insisted that because to the judges non-technical brains, an API looks the same as software, it must be copyrightable as software. That was after Judge Alsup in the district court (following trial #1) had spent quite a lot of time explaining to CAFC why APIs are not copyrightable.

Thus, we had the second trial, which was weird, because all of the arguments about fair use, were couched in this weird "um, well, it's not really copyrightable at all, but CAFC says it's copyrightable, so let's just say it's fair use" argument. And the jury then said, yes, it's fair use.

But CAFC has now rejected that and sent the case back to the lower court for a third trial for damages. And, while we normally expect bad reasoning from CAFC decisions, this one is particularly stupid. In short, CAFC's reasoning is basically "we think this is infringement, and thus we're going to handwave around the law to make sure that it's infringement." It's bad. And, again, CAFC shouldn't even be hearing the case. CAFC hears appeals on patent cases, and originally there were a few patent claims in this case, but they all got dumped at a very early stage. So this case should have gone to the 9th Circuit (who also might have messed it up, but it has at least a marginally better record than CAFC).

Anyway, the CAFC does an awful lot of handwaving around historical precedent to justify its decision to basically start from scratch in going through the fair use four factors. As we've discussed multiple times, one of the problems with the four factors test is that it allows a court to choose who it likes better, and then twist the four factors to give it the outcome it wants. That appears to be what is happening here. On the first factor (nature of the use), CAFC basically says "we think the jury is stupid, this is obviously commercial use, and thus it goes against Google." Google had argued (and the jury had implicitly agreed) that because Google doesn't charge for Android, and interoperability and progress of innovation enabled by using similar API setups are not inherently commercial motives, that this was fair use. The court basically says "but Google has so much money!" which is not how a fair use argument works. But... CAFC.

That Google might also have non-commercial motives is irrelevant as a matter of law. As the Supreme Court made clear when The Nation magazine published excerpts from Harper & Row’s book, partly for the purpose of providing the public newsworthy information, the question “is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.” Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562. Second, although Google maintains that its revenue flows from advertisements, not from Android, commerciality does not depend on how Google earns its money. Indeed, “[d]irect economic benef