Oracle vs. Google Court Filing, retrieved on May 9, 2014, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 15 of 16. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here III.
Many of Google’s arguments, and those of some amici, appear premised on the belief that copyright is not the correct legal ground upon which to protect intellectual property rights to software programs; they opine that patent protection for such programs, with its insistence on non-obviousness, and shorter terms of protection, might be more applicable, and sufficient. Indeed, the district court’s method of operation analysis seemed to say as much. Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp.
Feb. 26, 2014, 1:13 PM, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/ 2014/02/26/will-the-supreme-court-save-us-from-softwarepatents/ . Importantly for our purposes, the Supreme Court has made clear that “either the Copyright Statute nor any other says that because a thing is patentable it may not be copyrighted.” Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 . Indeed, the thrust of the CONTU Report is that copyright is “the most suitable mode of legal protection for computer software.” Peter S.