Oracle Answers Google Motion to Dismiss Claim

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - Oracle balked at Google's attempt to dismiss a claim that its Android operating system infringes on copyrighted Java programming language.

The opposition brief filed Saturday blasts Google's argument that application programming interfaces are not subject to copyright as a matter of law, with Oracle reinforcing its accusation that Google copied Java source code line for line.

"The copying in this case is undisputed," wrote Oracle attorney Kenneth Kuwayti of Morrison & Foerster. "Over a period of many months, Google employees and contractors sat down and duplicated, line by line, the specifications for Oracle's application programming interfaces for Java."

Kuwayti further noted that Google's Aug. 2 motion to dismiss reproduced specifications for 37 application programming interfaces (APIs) "from Java's core libraries that were identical, or nearly identical to Oracle's, and they had copied those specifications into Android code."

The Java application programming interfaces "serve as the guide to, and set forth the structure of, an extensive set of class libraries that provide developers with pre-packaged code they call upon during their programming," according to the 30-page brief.

"The 37 APIs contain thousands of different elements, arranged in a unique structure, with many interdependent relationships," Kuwayti added. "They readily meet the standard for copyright protections. Google, in fact, claims copyright protection for its own APIs."

"Google nonetheless urges the court to hold that all APIs are not copyrightable as a matter of law," the motion continues. "No court has ever done so. Google's request is contrary to Ninth Circuit law, which provides that the copyrightability of the non-literal components of a computer program is to be examined on the particular facts of each case."

Oracle says Google has asked the court to excuse its copying "on the ground that it was required for compatibility."

"But Google undermines the compatibility of Java," Kuwayti wrote. "It took the APIs it wanted, to attract developers to Android and gain market share quickly, and left those it did not - fragmenting Java and its 'write once, run anywhere' promise."

Google also engaged in line-for-line copying of Java source code, object code and comments in 12 separate programs. "Google claims it should be given a pass, claiming the copying is de minimis," Kuwayti wrote. "It is not. Each program is entitled to protection as a separate work, and Google copied a substantial portion of each - and in most cases the entire program. And when combined with the copying of the [application programming interfaces], Google's copying is significant even for Java as a whole."

Oracle asked the court to deny Google's motion for summary judgment of Count VIII of the amended complaint. Significant portions of the motion were redacted, with many quotations attributed to Google employees blacked out. Oracle posted an unredacted version on Sept. 6.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit