Supreme Court Weighs Into Copyright Issues Involving Tech, New Media
The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a third-party software maintenance provider in its quest to recoup the nearly $13 million it paid to Oracle Corp. to cover the litigation costs of a copyright dispute.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh held the winning party in a copyright case can’t collect expert-witness fees and jury consultant costs.
The long-running legal battle began when Oracle, which develops and licenses software that, among other things, manage data for businesses and non-profits, sued Rimini Street Inc., alleging it had made unauthorized copies of Oracle’s copyrighted software to provide support to customers who had licensed them.
In 2015, a Nevada jury ruled in Oracle’s favor, finding that Rimini Street had violated both federal copyright law as well as laws pertaining to computer access in California and Nevada.
The jury awarded Oracle $50 million in damages, and the district court later tacked on an award of fees and court costs, including $12.8 million for litigation expenses including expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting.
The court arrived at the figure by focusing a specific sentence in Section 505 of Title 17 that made reference to the prevailing party in a copyright case being entitled to recoup the “full costs” of the litigation.
But Rimini Street found that reading of the law wanting.
It appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing the awarded litigation fees were excessive and violated the six categories of costs the statute otherwise specifies.
On review, the appellate court acknowledged Rimini Street was correct in claiming the award fell outside the six categories of costs. But it went on to hold the award was appropriate because the Copyright Act gives federal district courts discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation.
In reversing that ruling on Monday, Kavanaugh wrote that while Oracle had advanced substantial arguments in favor of sustaining the award, “We ultimately do not find those arguments persuasive.”
“Oracle argues that the word ‘full’ authorizes courts to award expenses beyond the costs specified in [in the Copyright Law] … We disagree,” the justice wrote. “‘Full’ is a term of quantity or amount. It is an adjective that means the complete measure of the noun it modifies. … The adjective ‘full’ in §505 therefore does not alter the meaning of the word ‘costs.’ Rather, ‘full costs’ are all the ‘costs’ otherwise available under law.”
To make his point plain, Kavanaugh went on to explain that “the word ‘full’ operates in the phrase ‘full costs’ just as it operates in other common phrases: A ‘full moon’ means the moon, not Mars. A ‘full breakfast’ means breakfast, not lunch. A ‘full season ticket plan’ means tickets, not hot dogs. So too, the term ‘full costs’ means costs, not other expenses.”
In a second copyright case, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. WallStreet.com, the high court ruled Monday that a copyright claimant cannot sue for infringement until after the Copyright Office has ruled on its copyright-registration application.
Then, and only then, can the copyright owner can sue for infringement that occurred both before and after the application was approved, the justices said.
The case stems from a falling out between two media companies. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation, a news organization, licensed works to WallStreet.com, a news website.
WallStreet.com later cancelled the license agreement and Fourth Estate sued after learning the website had not removed its content.
WallStreet.com fought back by noting that at the time the dispute erupted, Fourth Estate had filed applications to register the articles with the Copyright Office, but the Register of Copyrights had not acted on those applications.
Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged Fourth Estate’s concern that a copyright owner could lose the ability to enforce its rights if the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations runs out before the Copyright Office acts on its application for registration.
” … the statutory scheme has not worked as Congress likely envisioned,” Ginsburg wrote. “Registration processing times have increased from one or two weeks in 1956 to many months today. Delays in Copyright Office processing of applications, it appears, are attributable, in large measure, to staffing and budgetary shortages that Congress can alleviate, but courts cannot cure. … Unfortunate as the current administrative lag may be, that factor does not allow us to revise §411(a)’s congressionally composed text.”
“For the reasons stated, we conclude that ‘registration . . . has been made” within the meaning of 17 U. S. C. §411(a) not when an application for registration is filed, but when the Register has registered a copyright after examining a properly filed application,” she said.
In The News
WASHINGTON (AP) — In agreeing to hear a potentially groundbreaking abortion case, the Supreme Court has energized activists on both sides of the long-running debate who are now girding to make abortion access a major issue in next year's midterm elections. For many evangelicals, the case... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Collier says that during the seven years he worked as an operating room aide at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, white nurses called him and other Black employees "boy." Management ignored two large swastikas painted on a storage room wall. And for... Read More
(This is the fourth and final part of a four-part series. The first three parts can be read here, here and here.) The First Amendment Prevails The Supreme Court’s decision in the Pentagon Papers case, officially, New York Times Co. v. United States, affirmed historical precedents... Read More
(This is the second part of a four-part series. The first installment can be read here.) To Publish or Not to Publish Upon his return to Washington, Sheehan and an editor booked a room at the Jefferson Hotel, where they spent weeks reading and summarizing the... Read More
The battle was joined on a Monday night. It was shortly after 7 p.m. on June 14, 1971, when a seething President Richard Nixon telephoned his attorney general, John Mitchell, and told him it was time to make the administration’s position clear to The New York... Read More
WASHINGTON -- A California law that requires nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors met with skepticism among most of the U.S. Supreme Court’s justices during a hearing Monday. The law is opposed by coalitions of nonprofit organizations that say the disclosures could dry up their contributions... Read More