Tech Law Journal

Capitol Dome
News, records, and analysis of legislation, litigation, and regulation affecting the computer, internet, communications and information technology sectors

TLJ Links: Home | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
Other: Thomas | USC | CFR | FR | FCC | USPTO | CO | NTIA | EDGAR

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




Defendant and Appellant,


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




David T. McDonald (Washington Bar No. 5260)
Karl J. Quackenbush (Washington Bar No. 9602)
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)
1020 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone: (650) 614-7400
Allen J. Ruby (California Bar No. 47109)
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)
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, Washington 98052-6399
Telephone: (425) 882-8080

Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Table of Contents

A. Nature of the Case
B. Course of Proceedings
C. Disposition Below
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"
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.

Table of Authorities


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)


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)


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.


Subscriptions | FAQ | Notices & Disclaimers | Privacy Policy
Copyright 1998-2008 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.
Phone: 202-364-8882. P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.