After a decade from its beginning, the Google vs. Oracle has ended with Google on the winning side. However, the decision has garnered much controversy due to how it might impact the future of code. One side rooting for Google believing that companies would be forced to implement deliberately incompatible standards (restricting services’ abilities to communicate with one another) to protect themselves from the risk of complex litigation. The other side rooting for Oracle while cautioning that a judgment favoring Google’s position would weaken protection for copyright for software code developers, allowing competitors with better resources to develop improved products from smaller firms, and reduce the motive for innovation within the industry.
On August 13, 2010, Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement, citing that Google was aware that they had developed Android without a Java license and copied its APIs. Oracle also mentioned that Google had no excuse to be unaware of infringing patents, given that they had hired developers that had originally worked on Java. Oracle sought both monetary damages and an injunction to stop Google from using the allegedly infringing materials.
The first phase of the case, which lasted 5 years, was split into three phases, copyright, patent, and damages. The court ruled in favor of Oracle by successfully establishing that APIs are copyrightable, but their claims of patent infringement were rejected.The second phase began in 2016 on whether Google’s actions were fair use given the prior ruling that the APIs were copyrightable. The courts ruled in favor of Google, which Oracle appealed a managed to get reversed in the Court of Appeals.Google appealed before the Supreme Court of the United States in January 2019 seeking to challenge the rulings made by the appeals court in Oracle’s favor. The Court issued its decision on April 5, 2021, letting Google off the hook by overturning the lower court’s decision.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the majority opinion said that “to allow enforcement of Oracle’s copyright here would risk harm to the public”. So many programmers used and had a deep knowledge of Oracle’s building blocks that such a move would turn computer code into “a lock limiting the future creation of new programs”. “Oracle alone would hold the key,” he warned.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas commented that allowing fair use simply because it allows new products to be created effectively redefines the idea. “That new definition eviscerates copyright,” he warned. He also lamented that the majority had decided not to rule on whether code was copyrightable, instead of saving the question for another day and relying on fair use instead.
Company Capri Internacional S.A. was sanctioned in the first instance with a fine of $140,000 USD by the Copyright Commission (CDA) of Indecopi (Trademark Office of Peru), for infringing the rules on copyright and related rights due to the commercialization of the album “World Cup Russia 2018” (with the denomination “3 Kings”) and the mobile application “Virtual Stickers” in Peru.
Initially, through the sanctioning administrative process initiated on its own initiative, the CDA concluded that the mentioned company had infringed the patrimonial rights of reproduction and distribution over the photographs and stickers included in the album ‘World Cup Russia 2018’, because it did not have the authorization of the owners of said works to exploit them commercially. Notwithstanding this, the Commission extended the previous infringement of the rights of reproduction and public communication over motion picture recordings – which, although they are not considered works, are protected by related rights – to which people could access through a mobile application called ‘Virtual Stickers’.
In relation to this case, it is important to note that the sanction of the CDA to Capri International S.A. it was developed later to another fine that the Commission of Control of the Unfair Competition (CCD) of Indecopi imposed in September to the company to market the aforementioned album in the Peruvian market.
In contrast to those explained above, it remains to be expected if the company Capri Internacional will exercise its defense through the corresponding appeal that is recognized, within the relevant legal time frame.
Source: https://gestion.peRead More
Argentine Justice orders Blocking Popular Movie Streaming Website Cuevana2 after Copyright Infringement
Chamber V of the Argentine National Criminal and Correctional Chamber reversed a First Instance ruling that had rejected a precautionary measure requested by Fox, Disney, Paramount, Columbia and other companies that act as joint plaintiffs against the Cuevana2 site, and ordered their provisional blocking of the site, for alleged violation of the Intellectual Property Law 11723, considering this measure as reasonable, appropriate and proportional..
The aforementioned site, created by Tomás Escobar from San Juan in 2011, which began as a small-scale personal project, aroused the interest of the large film companies as it became one of the largest sites for movies and online series from which any user can access for free, by using a streaming system, to Fox, Disney, Paramount, Columbia and other companies audiovisual productions.
For this reason, the complainant demands to the Court the blocking of all websites associated with the name of “Cuevana” in Argentina due to the fact, that the streaming service changed its name to Cuevana 2, in 2014, 5 years after it began to offer access to movies and series, without permission, under the Cuevana brand.
Thus, the second instance in charge of approving this precautionary measure, based its decision on Article 79 of the aforementioned Intellectual Property Law (11,723), which empowers judges, upon payment of bail on the part of the interested party, to “decree preventively suspending a theatrical, cinematographic, philharmonic or other similar show “to” effectively protect the rights of authors over their scientific, literary or artistic works to publish, represent, publicly expose, translate, adapt or reproduce it in any form ” that covers the aforementioned norm.
Therefore, since Cuevana does not have any type of authorization from its owners, the action of these Internet sites, which allow access to artistic works such as films and series, is violating universally protected moral and patrimonial rights.
SOURCE: http://www.ovrik.com/Read More