|
Microsoft's Appeal Brief in Microsoft v. Sun
Microsystems.
Case No. 99-15046, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
Date filed: January 13, 1999.
Source: Microsoft. This document has been edited for HTML, but not for content.
Due to the size of this brief, it is divided into three
HTML pages:
• Page 1 (this page).
Table of Contents.
Table of Authorities.
• Page 2.
I. Statement of Jurisdiction.
II. Statement of the Issues.
III. Statement of Facts.
IV. Statement of the Facts.
V. Summary of the Argument.
VI. Standards of Review.
• Page 3.
VII. Argument.
VIII. Conclusion.
No. 99-15046
_____________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant and Appellant,
vs.
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff and Appellee.
_____________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
No. C-97-20884 RMW
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
_____________________
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
_____________________
David T. McDonald (Washington Bar No. 5260)
Karl J. Quackenbush (Washington Bar No. 9602)
PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5000
Seattle, Washington 98104-7078
Telephone: (206) 623-7580 |
Terrence P. McMahon (California Bar No. 71910)
Barbara A. Caulfield (California Bar No. 108999)
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1020 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone: (650) 614-7400 |
Allen J. Ruby (California Bar No. 47109)
RUBY & SCHOFIELD
60 South Market Street, Suite 1500
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 998-8500 |
Thomas W. Burt (Washington Bar No. 9613)
Linda Norman (Washington Bar No. 15369)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, Washington 98052-6399
Telephone: (425) 882-8080 |
Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Table of Contents
| CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT |
| I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION |
| II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES |
| III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE |
|
A. Nature of the Case |
|
B. Course of Proceedings |
|
C. Disposition Below |
| IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS |
|
A. The Java Programming Language and the Licensed Java Technology |
|
B. The Parties’ Competing Interests in Java |
|
C. The Terms of the Parties’ Technology Licensing and Distribution
Agreement 0 |
|
|
1. Sun’s Agreement to Limit Its Remedies |
|
|
2. Microsoft’s Java Implementations |
|
|
3. The Present Dispute |
|
|
|
a. JNI |
|
|
|
b. Microsoft’s Enhanced Java Compiler |
|
|
|
c. Microsoft’s Alleged "Unfair Competition" |
| V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT |
| VI. STANDARDS OF REVIEW |
| VII. ARGUMENT |
|
A. The District Court Erred by Treating a Breach of Contract Action as One
for Copyright Infringement. |
|
|
1. The District Court Erred by Applying a Copyright Preliminary Injunction
Standard to Sun’s Claim that Microsoft Breached the TLDA and by Not Requiring Sun to
Demonstrate Irreparable Injury. |
|
|
|
a. The District Court Ignored the Well-Settled Rule that Precludes Sun from Treating
Its Claim for Breach of Contract as a Claim for Copyright Infringement. |
|
|
|
b. Sun Failed to Prove and the District Court Did Not Find the Necessary Predicates
that Would Give Rise to a Copyright Claim Based on Microsoft’s Alleged Breach of a
Covenant. |
|
|
|
c. The District Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Treating the TLDA’s Covenants
as Restrictions on the Scope of Microsoft’s License. |
|
|
|
(1) The Scope of Microsoft’s License Is
Defined by Its Affirmative Grants and Sun’s Claim Does Not Relate to those
Provisions. |
|
|
|
(2) The Case Law Does Not Support the Court’s
Analysis. |
|
|
|
(3) The District Court Erred by Recasting
Microsoft’s Obligations in the TLDA as Scope Limitations. |
|
|
|
d. The District Court Erred by Applying the Wrong Preliminary Injunction Standard and
Denying Microsoft a Meaningful Balance of the Hardships. |
|
|
|
e. Even if the Copyright Standard Were the Appropriate Standard in this Case, the
District Court Improperly Applied that Standard. |
|
B. The TLDA Bars Sun from Obtaining Injunctive Relief in these
Circumstances. |
|
|
1. The District Court Erred in Interpreting the TLDA as Reserving to Sun
the Right to Seek a Preliminary Injunction. |
|
|
2. Even if Section 11.2(b) Permits Sun to Seek Injunctive Relief, the
Court Failed to Make a Finding of Willfulness Necessary to Invoke Section 11.2(b). |
|
C. The District Court Improperly Extended the Preliminary Injunction to
Prohibit Independent Development that by Definition Cannot Constitute Copyright
Infringement. |
|
D. The District Court Exceeded its Injunctive Power by Improperly
Enjoining Past Conduct Without Any Showing of Imminent Harm or Probability of Recurrence. |
|
E. The District Court Erred in Interpreting Microsoft’s Products as
Being in Breach of the TLDA. |
|
|
1. The District Court Erred in Finding that Microsoft’s Java Compiler
Violates the Compatibility Provisions of the TLDA. |
|
|
|
a. The District Court Erred in Adding a Term to the TLDA Based on Extrinsic Evidence. |
|
|
|
b. The Only "Test" Failed by Microsoft’s Compilers in Enhanced Mode is
Not a Test at All, Just a Description. |
|
|
2. The District Court Erred in Concluding That Microsoft’s
Compatibility Obligations Under the TLDA Require Microsoft to Support JNI. |
|
|
|
a. JNI is Not About the Java Language. |
|
|
|
b. The JAVA Test Suites Are About Java Language Based Compatibility. |
|
|
|
c. The TLDA Does Not Permit Sun to Add to the Public Application Programming
Interfaces Identified in Section 1.1(a). |
|
|
|
d. The Java Reference Implementation Provisions of the TLDA Do Not Support the
District Court’s Findings Concerning JNI. |
| VIII. CONCLUSION |
Table of Authorities
Cases
| A. Kemp Fisheries, Inc. v. Castle & Cooke, Inc., 852 F.2d 493 (9th
Cir. 1988) |
| American Cyanamid Co. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 833 F. Supp. 92 (D. Conn. 1992) |
| Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) |
| Aschelman v. Wawrzaszek, 111 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 1997) |
| Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996) |
| Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp., 602 F.2d 866 (9th Cir.
1979) |
| Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1992) |
| Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 125 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 1997) |
| City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 68 Cal.
App. 4th 445 (1998) |
| Cognitest Corp. v. Riverside Publ’g Co., 107 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 1997) |
| Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1988) |
| Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 789 F.
Supp. 470 (D. Mass. 1992) |
| Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp., 77 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1996) |
| Dolman v. Agee, 157 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 1998) |
| Entertainment Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d
1211 (9th Cir. 1997) |
| Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479 (5th Cir.
1981) |
| Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 1997) |
| Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) |
| Fred Fisher, Inc. v. Dillingham, 298 F. 145 (S.D.N.Y. 1924) |
| Fosson v. Palace (Waterland), Ltd., 78 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1996) |
| Frankel v. Board of Dental Examiners, 46 Cal. App. 4th 534 (1996) |
| Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998) |
| Hanson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 783 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1985) |
| Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990) |
| MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) |
| Martin v. United States, 649 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1981) |
| McDonald v. Stockton Metro. Transit Dist., 36 Cal. App. 3d 436 (1973) |
| Micro Star v. Formgen, Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) |
| Mid-West Conveyor Co. v. Jervis B. Webb Co., 877 F. Supp. 552 (D. Kan. 1995) |
| Muniz v. United States, 972 F.2d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1992) |
| Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 16 F.3d 1032 (9th
Cir.1994) |
| Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 160 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1998) |
| Oceanside 84, Ltd. v. Fidelity Fed. Bank, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1441 (1997) |
| Olsen v. Breeze, Inc., 48 Cal. App. 4th 608 (1996) |
| Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 442 P.2d
641 (Cal. 1968) |
| People v. Toomey, 157 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1984) |
| Practice Mgt. Info. Corp. v. American Med. Ass’n., 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir.
1997) |
| In re Riso, 978 F.2d 1151 (9th Cir. 1992) |
| S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1989) |
| Sierra Club v. Hickel, 433 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1970) |
| Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750 (9th Cir.
1982) |
| T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1964) |
| Topolos v. Caldeway, 698 F.2d 991 (9th Cir. 1983) |
| In re U.S. Fin. Sec. Litig., 729 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1984) |
| Video Trip Corp. v. Lightning Video, Inc., 866 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1989) |
Statutes and Rules
| 15 U.S.C. § 1121 |
| 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) |
| 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) |
| 17 U.S.C. § 501 |
| 17 U.S.C. § 502 |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1338 |
| Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 |
| Fed R. App. P. 4(a)(1) |
Treatises
Arthur Linton Corbin, 3 Corbin on Contracts § 633 (1960)
E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts § 8.2 (1982)
Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer,
3 Nimmer on Copyright § 10.15[A] (1998) , 32
4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.01[B] (1998)
4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[F][5] (1998)
Miscellaneous
Marci A. Hamilton & Ted Sabety, Computer Science Concepts in Copyright
Cases: The Path to Coherent Law, 10 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 239 (1997) 3
John Shepard Wiley, Jr., Copyright at the School of Patent, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev.
119 (1991)
Go to page 2.
|
