Analyzing Copyright Infringement: Two Case Studies

INTRODUCTION

This paper covers two law cases on copyright infringement. The first one is Jacobus Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., a case in which Nike was accused of infringing the copyright of a photo by creating a similar photo and logo. The focus is on how the court determines the breadth of copyright protection and the assessment of substantial similarity. The second case is Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., a case in which Google was accused of infringing the copyright of Java codes. The highlights are the discussion on copyrightability and fair-use defense. The paper ends with some concluding remarks on the dilemma courts face when seeking a balance between copyright protection and freedom of creation / industrial development.

CASE 1
JACOBUS RENTMEESTER V. NIKE, INC. No. 3:2015cv00113 (Jacobus Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc. )
A. Background
1. In 2015, a motion was filed by Nike (the defendant) to dismiss Jacobus Rentmeester’s (the plaintiff’s)

The dilemma facing the court is even more obvious in the case of Oracle v. Google. When the federal circuit ruled that Java APIs were copyrightable in 2014, numerous software developers and Java programming communities were worried about the consequence of the ruling. The freedom to extend the currently-in-use APIs are fundamental to the development of computers, the Internet and other mobile devices. People were anxious about the potential API litigations that could trouble a lot of software technology companies. Where the copyright protection stretches, or wrongfully stretches to, some fundamental elements for industrial innovation, the court has to seek a way to minimize the negative effect.

4. I believe that the fair use defense was a useful shield for software industries where products are made from pre-existing codes. It also, in substance, leaves the court more flexibility in striking the delicate balance between copyright protection and the need for development in the industry and the commercial