We’re Mitek, a NASDAQ-listed global leader in mobile capture and digital identity verification solutions built on the latest advancements in AI and machine learning

Mitek Systems

Artificial intelligence is known as the intelligence demonstrated by machinery. In today’s world, artificial intelligence has become very popular. It is the simulation of natural intelligence in machines designed to learn and imitate human actions. These machines can learn from experience and perform tasks similar to human beings. A large proportion of AI is being utilized for Computer Vision and in this article, we will be going over what it is and its usage in the industry. What is Computer Vision? Computer Vision which is an abbreviation for CV is a field of study that enables computers to perceive real-world objects via static image or a video. Computer vision covers all biological system vision tasks, including the “seeing”, the understanding, and the extraction of complicated information in a form that can be used for other processes.
These elements of human vision systems using sensors, computers, and machine learning algorithms are imitated and automated in this field. How does Computer Vision work? The whole idea about Artificial Intelligence is to imitate a human being as closely and as efficiently as possible. Imagine someone throwing a ball at you, you perceive the object and knew exactly when to react to it and catch it.
This process may seem too simple for humans but for a Computer, an image is just an array of numbers that requires further processing by the computer to identify the object(aka Object Identification technique). Which top companies are using computer vision? Several companies are now moving towards Computer Vision and there are several tech giants in there as well. who is the parent company of Google which is the world’s largest search engine has created which can derive insights from images to their cloud using pre-trained vision models to detect texts, languages, and emotions. Alphabet. Inc Vision.ai is another giant that has a under it, according to their research team, they are creating visual sensors capable of extracting information from the environment to further enable Facebook services to automate tasks that people automatically do today visually. Facebook, Inc computer vision division has created a specialized processing unit called which enables faster-cutting edge processing for high demanding Ai workloads with exceptional efficiency that would not have been possible with their regular CPUs. Intel Corporation Vision Processing Unit(VPU) Top 10 Computer Vision Applications 1- Computer Vision in Financial Industry Mitek Systems has developed a system for . This enables passports, ID cards, and driver’s licenses to be accurately checked. Hence they have automated the process and have reduced the chance of having a human error. image recognition for the financial sector 2- Computer Vision in Automotive Industry Tesla has set the bar when it comes to smart, electric, and clean energy vehicles but one of the features that took the world by storm was the self-driving capability that was introduced to it. Any self-driving vehicle, including Tesla vehicles, mainly has to stay on the right track before moving the road in the right direction. Tasks like detection of obstacles are a large part of the pile, and other features like the Smart Summon enable the driver to find their vehicle in a car park. Among other tasks, these additional tasks are combined with the basic lane and trajectory functions to achieve the long-term objective. 3- Computer Vision to Medical Industry Computer vision is now being used to diagnose conditions related to health. This allows interventions for lifesaving purposes. Smart healthcare becomes a reality when used alongside sensors. Gauss Surgical has, for example, developed a solution that allows the use of advanced cloud-based computer vision algorithms to monitor blood loss in real-time. They can maximize blood transfusions by their solutions. It also proved to be more skilled than a trained human in detecting conditions like hemorrhage. It has already proven itself in operations like Cesarean delivery. 4- Computer Vision in Cosmetic Industry DeepLens has been developed by Amazon Web Services for extensive learning, computer vision hardware, and applications. They can be adapted to different applications as open-source systems. DermLens is one such evolution. It supports patients in monitoring and managing skin conditions like psoriasis. DermLens was preferred by 72 percent of users to other monitoring solutions in a Journal for American Dermatology. 5- Computer Vision in Sports Industry is the future of football. This revolutionary player development platform provides productive insights for players to predict the future faces of football. JOGO Its state-of-the-art data collection – driven by computer vision and learning, sensor tech, and much more – makes it possible to track physique, technique, and cognitive abilities seamlessly. JOGO allows the football community that includes clubs and trainers worldwide to follow their players’ progress, while young talents can measure their growth in real-time, use all of this data to get better than ever. 6- Computer Vision in Retail Industry In developing retail technology, Amazon is leading the way. A clever business, Amazon Go, was recently unveiled by the company. Deep training and CV enable customers to pay for goods without a check-out. The camera monitors when objects are taken from the racks and placed in carts. These systems record every item that a customer chooses by tracking the customer. The customer simply leaves the store when he/she has finished shopping. The technology in the shop can link the customer to their Amazon account so that their purchases are automatically charged. 7- Computer Vision in Beauty Industry Neutrogena uses an application to scan the skin of customers. The Skin360 app then determines the customers’ health and enables them to identify the products most relevant or useful. These are but a few ways to personalize the customer experience with a CV. Brands are becoming increasingly aware of how satisfied customers are and committed to the brand by offering a personalized service. This helps maintain a strong base of customers, the key to any company. 8- Computer Vision in Security Industry StopLift uses computer vision systems to help shops minimize volatility and other losses. Their ScanItAll system detects check-out errors and identifies cashiers that prevent products from being scanned. Existing video cameras and sales point systems can also be installed with ScanItAll to facilitate integration in the stores. In Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Australia, StopLift applications are already in operation. A Piggly Wiggly case study showed that StopLift helped cut losses considerably. 9- Computer Vision in the Construction industry To monitor the features of industrial sites, such as wells or factories, Computer Vision software has proved to be useful. Osprey Informatics uses CV for remote wells, industrial installations, and site security monitoring. Their systems can supply regular images of the site for 15 minutes. They also offer video monitoring in real-time or live. 10- Computer Vision for Security A total of 417 mass shootings took place in the U.S. alone in 2019. While law enforcement works hard to protect its people, improved monitoring and security standards could help to create a safer society. Athena Security provides a computer-based AI monitoring system for guns, knives, and other weapons to be identified in real-time. The system can immediately notify safety alerts or enforce the threat when detected.

The Machines Are Watching You: Top 10 Computer Vision Applications

Crypto Crash? Not Really... 

As the world continues to move towards the future workplace, we’ve seen a shift in the way that we communicate. In an environment defined by remote working, mobile employees, and diverse offices, a disjointed and complicated communication stack is no longer manageable. Companies need something agile, aligned, and ready to scale at a moment’s notice. Unified Communication platforms delivered over the cloud give modern organizations the freedom they need to thrive in today’s complex environment. UC vendors ensure that companies of all sizes can connect their communication offerings together in the same platform, regardless of whether they’re investing in voice communications, text messaging, video conferencing, or anything else. The question is, with so many UC options to choose from, how do you separate the best-unified communication platforms from the crowd? Here are just 6 of the brands making waves for 2019: 1 — Avaya Avaya has had its ups and downs in the communication space. Not so long ago, the business was struggling with the pressure of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Yet despite this hurdle, Avaya has remained to be one of the most popular and . Providing a range of simple, yet intuitive communication solutions to choose from, Avaya offers everything from messaging to meetings, calling, and team collaboration. well-respected brands in the UC environment Named a leader in the unified communications world with a leading global share in and unified messaging, Avaya has plenty of value to offer any growing brand. Whether you’re looking for communication strategies on-premise, in the cloud, or through hybrid cloud investments, Avaya can deliver through a converged, open, and innovative approach. contact center solutions Today, more than 90% of the US’s largest companies work with Avaya, and 144 million people rely on the brand each day for reliable communication strategies. 2 — Cisco Cisco is another brand, like Avaya, that is instantly recognizable in the Unified Communications landscape. For years, as a leader in the networking space. It’s been growing its heritage since 1984! Cisco’s unified communications solutions are designed to seamlessly connect computing devices, people, and networks so that companies of any size can transfer information quickly and easily. the company has stood out Though there are plenty of popular cloud communication companies on the market today, few have the same heritage as Cisco Systems. Around 85% of today’s internet traffic travels through Cisco networks, and the company also uses the internet to run their entire business online. Today, Cisco also offers one of the world’s most popular collaboration tools for enterprises — Cisco Webex Teams. That means that it can keep the back-end of your business well-connected while ensuring strong communications on the front-end too. (Photo credit: Unsplash) 3 — RingCentral RingCentral one of the Top UC companies in the world, although it’s a little smaller in size than Avaya and Cisco. The business works hand-in-hand with its customers to deliver a bespoke solution to their communication needs. The RingCentral dedication to passion and growth has helped it to become the number one provider of cloud communications worldwide today. Building platforms to suit any sized business, RingCentral believes that anyone should be able to access the latest technology in the market. That’s why the brand is constantly innovating to help people do better work together. With RingCentral, users can access cost-effective and intuitive calling platforms, video conferencing, and even team messaging. Additionally, the flexible nature of environment makes it easier for even smaller companies to get started with UC. RingCentral delivers one of the best unified communication platforms for cost-effective performance in any workplace, with an all-in-one cloud phone system that works for anyone. RingCentral’s cloud communications 4 — Deltapath Deltapath might not have the same heritage as some of the other top UC companies on this list, but it’s fresh approach to communications makes it an excellent option for any growing brand. The company is dedicated to removing the barriers that prevent today’s organizations from tapping into revolutionary communication technologies. Whether you’re looking for collaboration tools or video conferencing, . Deltapath has you covered Unlike other unified communication platforms that get so focused on features they forget about functionality, Deltapath puts simplicity at the heart of everything it does. The business believes that every solution should give users access to a straightforward mode of communication that’s appropriate for the situation. Deltapath’s all-in-one UC solution works with virtually any environment. What’s more, Skype for Business Gateways, WebRTC video customer service, and Dolby voice quality means you’re getting the best experience on any channel. No matter how you choose to interact with customers in today’s omnichannel environment, you can deliver better experiences with Deltapath. 5 — Mitel Mitel is another global market leader and a on our list of the best unified communication platforms. The brand currently powers more than two billion business conversations around the world through their flexible cloud solutions, enterprise environments, and next-generation collaboration tools. must-mention name Boasting more than 70 million users across 100 countries, Mitel is one of the most committed brands on the market when it comes to customer service and support. The organization goes above and beyond to help customers access the UC strategies that are right for them, even if that means evolving from old legacy systems into new environment. Mitel has been on the market for more than 45 years, innovating and delivering new solutions across the decades. The brand’s passion and commitment to growth has earned it more than 1 million UCaaS subscribers. It’s also the number one private cloud choice worldwide. (Photo credit: Unsplash) 6 — 8x8 Finally, 8x8 was the first company in the world to deliver a true Communications Cloud, which combines team collaboration performance, contact center solutions, unified communications, and analytics into the same real-time open platform. The 8x8 brand and the X series approach to unified communication means that businesses can build their own approach to unified cloud communications. When it comes to listing the top UC companies, as a brand committed to eliminating information silos, so that businesses can access the real-time information they need to make crucial decisions. The 8x8 Virtual platform enables businesses of all sizes to access everything from web conferencing to soft-phones, presence detection, company-wide chat, and more. 8x8 stands out 8x8 also integrates with a host of world-leading business solutions like NetSuite, Zendesk, and Salesforce, to help companies to better align their technology stacks. Which UC Company Will You Choose? Communication is the lifeblood of any successful company. Without successful communication, you can’t provide the excellent customer service that your customers need or provide the collaboration opportunities that employees demand. With so many UC vendors to choose from, it can be challenging to determine which provider is right for you. Just remember that there’s no one-size-fits-all option. The UC solution you need will depend on your customers, your background, and your personal preferences.

6 Top Unified Communication Companies to Consider in 2019

Let's learn about via these 71 free stories. They are ordered by most time reading created on HackerNoon. Visit the to find the most read stories about any technology. Blockchain Application /Learn Repo 1. How Blockchain's Future Could Be Miles Apart From What Seems Blockchain technology may save the planet, according to Irina Swan Lebedeva, Product Lead at Consensys 2. Can Blockchain Technology Change Plagiarism Detection in Academia? top ways that blockchain technology can help improve education and academic writing by replacing traditional plagiarism-identifying techniques 3. ForkChain is Demystifying Blockchain for Easier Integration by Entrepreneurs Platforms like ForkChain are bringing a new perspective on blockchain to help entrepreneurs thrive. 4. Blockchain Technology Initiatives in India Indian Government, Universities as well as Industries are effectively participating in blockchain initiatives. Here's a list of some emerging initiatives. 5. How to Bulk Distribute SPL Tokens in 3 Easy Steps (Solana-based tokens) How to simply distribute SPL tokens in a couple of minutes using Solminter. 6. . 7. 4 Challenges Multichain Assets are Facing The Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol becomes relevant, which allows multiple blockchains to communicate with each other. 8. Masternodes Can Help Accelerate Enterprise Blockchain Adoption — Here's Why Masternodes are a key part of enterprise blockchain adoption, as they help accelerate transaction speeds, enhance security, and provide an incentive for network 9. The Top 5 Use Cases of Blockchain Technology Beyond Cryptocurrency Blockchain technology has been instrumental in changing the way we view finance. Let's take a look at what else can be achieved using it. 10. Yael Tamar, One of the Most Inspirational Women In Blockchain, on Revolutionizing Real Estate Space Converting blocks into digital securities, reinventing the way real estate projects come to life! Yael Tamar, co-CEO/founder, on the origin of SolidBlock. 11. Is Blockchain the Future of Supply Chain? Benefits and Challenges Blockchain represents a complex technology with enough potential to revolutionize a wide range of industries. 12. A Look at the Laqira Protocol: An NFT and Metaverse Platform A look a Laqira Protocol and how it works 13. How to Automatically Pay Your End-Users’ GAS Fees Without HODLing Crypto What if we told you that you could automatically pay for the ALL of the gas fees for transactions from every user wallet in your app with your paid Tatum plan? 14. How Blockchain Could Immunize the Internet Against Distrust Technology may be powerful, but it’s also fragile. In recent years, a series of events--from Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal to Equifax’s massive data breach--have eroded the public’s trust not only in large companies, but in the Internet itself. The proliferation of fake news has us doubting every article we read. Deepfake photos and videos leave us wondering if we can trust our own eyes, or if what we see is just AI-generated. 15. Blockchain Technology and the Race for the Future The future of blockchain technology is a silver lining as it's overtaken the world with its unique evolving elements. Read out to know the future of blockchain. 16. Top 5 Problems With Blockchain Everyone Should Be Aware of Is blockchain what it seems to be? Well, the appropriate answer would be No. You must be wondering what could go wrong with blockchain technology. A LOT! 17. NEARCON 2022: Overall Impressions and Promising Results NEARCON 2022 became some of the biggest events in the crypto industry, bringing together the NEAR community and its co-thinkers and partners. 18. Understanding the Zero-Knowledge Proof Method One of the biggest advantages of blockchain technology is the degree of information transparency it offers. 19. What Is True Blockchain Interoperability? If you are in the crypto world, then the word "blockchain interoperability" may familiar to you because there are so many projects are gaining publicity and funds from investors by using this term, and many projects like  Chainlink, Cosmos, Polkadot, and Wanchain are claiming to give true blockchain interoperability. So in this article, we will discuss about these   projects and try to understand what kind of blockchain interoperability they are giving and what benefits we can get because of blockchain interoperability? 20. How Microsoft Envisions a Blockchain-Based System for Preventing Piracy A new paper published by Microsoft's research department proposes to tackle piracy with a blockchain-based bounty system titled "Argus." 21. Your Ultimate Guide to Ethereum and its Working Principles Ethereum is a blockchain platform that allows developers to build and deploy decentralized applications. 22. Decentralized Storage Could Be Blockchain's Killer Application The distributed architecture of these novel storage solutions makes them immune to censorship, service failure, and data theft. With decentralized cloud storage 23. Link up With the Best Blockchain Development Companies in 2021 Although blockchain is a relatively young industry, many companies have emerged that offer Blockchain Development Solutions. 24. How to Set Up Metamask and Add ETH to Your Wallet Let's explore how to maximize your metamask wallet for defi trading on ethereum and bsc. 25. NFTs: The Simplest Explanation You’ll Ever Read Learn what an NFT is and why anyone would want to buy anything from this blockchain technology niche. 26. What is Blockchain Escrow Service & How Does it Work? If you ever wondered what a blockchain escrow is and how it works this is the answer to your questions. Dive into the mystery of blockchain and smart contracts. 27. From Internet Voting to Blockchain Voting: From Good to Better If you've perchance stumbled over any of my previous ramblings, you'll know I believe blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionise the way we vote. I've been writing about it for over a year now on Hackernoon. In that time, I've had the chance to speak with some of the foremost experts in the field, Amelia Powers Gardener (now County Commisioner for Utah) and Philipe Andrea (silver-tongued advocate for Voatz), amongst others,  and I've learned a lot about the many ways that blockchain can be used to improve the voting process. 28. From Centralized to Decentralized? That Horse Is Out of the Barn In the wake of Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency announcement, which has its own regulatory challenges and governance issues, more and more “traditional” companies are evaluating how to embrace blockchain and crypto to achieve their financial and strategic goals. This is especially true in the retail commerce industry, where decentralization driven by blockchain and token economics has the potential to disrupt many different parts of the centralized business model. 29. Forensics Monitoring Is Blockchain’s New Sheriff Blockchain technology is becoming more mature and needs to become more reliable as a result. Forensics monitoring is one method of keeping it accurate. 30. Can Blockchain Technology Put an End to Electoral Fraud? There’s been a huge buzz around blockchain technology lately, and it seems the whole world’s catching the fever. With all the hype that Web3 is getting, it doesn’t look like the global buzz will end anytime soon. 31. BLOCKCHAIN: Do You Really Need It? This Will Help You Decide! The word “blockchain” is still surrounded by hysteria: companies that simply enter in it, their name soar in price by 400%. Half of the world would like to receive cryptocurrency as a gift for the New Year, while Bitcoin is called "the largest bubble in the history of mankind." A dozen new terms, some fascinate with innovation, others - scary, resembling a scam. I will explain in simple terms why bitcoin and blockchain are not the same things, how technology will make the world transparent and who will benefit from it. 32. How Will Blockchain Impact Healthcare? Blockchain has emerged as the discovery needed by health service providers.  Blockchain is an emerging solution for the abnormalities in healthcare, including 33. Maciej Krol, Co-Founder Of  FCQ Platform, On Building A Global Transaction Platform Maciej Krol, the co-founder of FCQPlatform shares the story of how their blockchain platform came to be, the challenges they are facing, and success so far. 34. Is Blockchain Ready for Mass Adoption? Here's What 100 Influencers Think “There are no more no conferences, no more networking.” That’s not true! Digital Week Online happened last week, and more than 100 invited speakers connected during the 48-hour, non-stop online conference to talk about the latest events happening in the innovation, investment, and technology space. 35. Why We're Choosing Open Source for Ara (And Why You Should, Too) Earlier this year, we released the Ara File Manager. Today, we’re very happy to announce we’ve also released the Ara File Manager’s source code. 36. Why NFTs Are The Future of Invoicing It's just the beginning for NFTs, which can revolutionize invoicing. NFTs are immutable, transparent, and fraud-proof - making them perfect for invoicing. 37. Anonymity and Privacy in Emerging Web3 Spaces Make the World go Round Considering previous legal theory & recent web3 events, it can be argued that the framework of privacy needs to be updated with an understanding of consent. 38. How to Create an Anonymous Voting System on the Blockchain Using Zero-Knowledge Proofs How to create an anonymous voting system on the blockchain using zero-knowledge proofs 39. What is the Recurring Payments PoC and How Does it Work? In the Moosty team, we learn by doing. By building proof of concepts we learn about blockchain technology & the creation of network dynamics. 40. Transforming the Nigerian Electoral Process Using Blockchain Technology Nigeria's 2023 presidential election was marred by violence. Blockchain could solve Nigeria's electoral woes and make the voting process more efficient. 41. Blockchain Technology's Rise and its Foreseeable Impacts Blockchains can facilitate more efficient, secure, and dependable automated communication. This will significantly improve the security and dependability of our 42. Classical Blockchain vs. Hedera Hashgraph If you thought hedera hashgraph was dead, prepare to be pleasantly surprised. The actual scenario is that it just needs better marketing, 43. WTF is Understandable Blockchain (UBC)? Currently, too many public blockchains exist and they all use different API and data structure, meaning that non-blockchain experts have to concern themselves too much with the intricacies of blockchain technology, as well as, their products and service development (DApps). 44. How Blockchain has Improved Detection of Malware Blockchain has not only become the fundamental technology for cryptocurrencies; it has also become a reliable means of detecting malware quickly and accurately. 45. Analysis of Blockchain Technology Adoption for ESG Initiatives in Business The importance of ESG in these times cannot be overstated, as there is a need to raise awareness of global social and economic inequality. 46. 5 Major Changes to Blockchain-Based Real Estate During COVID The COVID-19 pandemic could turn out to be a significant turning point in history. Events as widespread and disruptive as this are rare and present the world with unique opportunities. The world most likely won’t go back to the way it was but will instead move forward. 47. The Blockchain Forecast - from Public Chain to Cross-Chain, Everything You Need to Know in 2022 2022 blockchain and side chain forkcast 48. Blockchain-Based On-Chain Solutions: An Overview With more than a decade having past since the creation of Bitcoin, blockchains have come a long way. There is no doubt that the Bitcoin blockchain has its specific uses, and as developers figured out what else blockchains could be used for new types of chains had to be created. 49. Blockchain Facts: What Is It, How It Works, and How It Can Be Used A blockchain is a decentralized, distributed digital ledger that records transactions across multiple computers. 50. How I Built an API to Verify Claims of Feat I'm breaking down the process of building an API to verify claims. A few weeks ago, I started working on a project that I submitted to the Lisk Builder Program. 51. Cefion Anonymous Messenger App Review: Confidentiality, Simplicity, and Blockchain Have you ever thought about how much time you spend on your smartphone? Nowadays, almost all communications have moved to the digital environment, replacing traditional live talks. Moreover, most business processes have also become entrenched in the cloud. We learn to work and live on the go because the new realities of the social and commercial spheres oblige us to move forward, dissolving users in the Web. It increases the digital literacy of the population but reduces the confidentiality of personal data. 52. The Importance Of On-chain Analysis A look at the importance of on-chain anlysis 53. Clinical Trials on The Blockchain: 4 Companies Changing the Game The global drug development market is worth more than 350 billion dollars a year, according to ClinicalTrials.gov, which includes the costs of running the studies in addition to the resources used. 54. From 0 to 1000 Nodes on a Testnet: Case Study on Avalanche Denali What is a testnet? 55. A Brief Look at Why Tokenization is Important in the Blockchain Space A brief look at tokenization and why its ability to provide both whole and partial ownership of assets is important to the growing blockchain ecosystem. 56. What Makes the Cosmos Hub a Virtual Port City Blockchains are virtual cities: districts of economic and cultural exchange, where common infrastructure gives rise to a mutual sense of place and a shared social fabric. 57. Where Are We on Going Paperless, and the Adoption of Cryptographic Tech? Over the last decade, there’s been a massive outburst of internet users across the globe. Simultaneously, there’s been a growing penetration of different digital and paperless technologies across businesses and organizations. 58. Crypto Casinos: How the Integration of Blockchain Can Create More Transparency The changes that the integration of blockchain in online casinos has to offer, looks quite promising. Blockchain is all set to revolutionize online casinos. 59. How Blockchain Enhances Mobile App Development Process This is the era of modernization and digital transformation and no sector is immune to the technological changes that are sweeping the world. 60. What is the Recurring Payments PoC and How Does it Work? In the Moosty team, we learn by doing. By building proof of concepts we learn about blockchain technology & the creation of network dynamics. 61. An Intro to the Decentralized Organization Chain Decentralized Organization Chain (DOC) allows companies to start their own company blockchain and receive funding by selling tokens to investors. 62. Arcado Network Brings Decentralized Reward Systems to Video Games The Arcado Network focuses on bringing a decentralized reward system to any multiplayer game by providing game developers with a generic API. 63. Blockchain Interoperability: The Lifecycle of a Sidechain From its inception to its potential termination, a sidechain may go through three stages, corresponding to three states, in the context of the interoperability. 64. Blockchain: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly “I went from having to borrow money from friends to pay the bills to making $4 million in a day.” — Trevor Jones, a painter from the UK. 65. The Proof of EOS' Flexibility Lies In Its Comparison with Steemit In my opinion, the most important part of EOS is “OS”. After many architecture redesigns and refactoring, EOS became an excellent blockchain-based OS allowing projects to launch fast and secure blockchains with a  flexible account system and fully functional smart contracts. 66. Collabolancer is a Decentralized Freelancing Marketplace Collabolancer is an open source proof-of-concept decentralized freelancing marketplace, that enables seamless collaboration between employers, worker(s), and so 67. Is There a Security Vs. Coin Creation Trade-Off in Blockchains? Recent years have sparked significant interest in blockchain networks. This has resulted in significant progress in the theory of such distributed networks. In particular, followers gathered more data about possible blockchain designs, their limitations, and their trade-offs. There's called The trade-off between security and coin creation 68. Let's Explore ARK Core v3: Maintainability & Testability [Part 5] This is Part 5 of the Let’s Explore ARK Core series which documents the development of the next major release of ARK Core, alongside some tips & tricks on how to get started with contributing and building your next idea today. 69. Blockchain in the Sex Industry: Light at the End of the Tunnel? The article explores how blockchain helps the sex industry fight stereotypes and bias, add transparency, and ensure sustainability and safety. 70. I Got Tired of Reading About Blockchain Projects that I Can't Use - So I'm Building One Myself In August in Montréal, MUTEK, an international festival of digital creativity and electronic music, showcased fantastic projects combining art, music, spherical video, and virtual reality. I attended from Ara Blocks, a software startup dedicated to building tools for digital creators like these. MUTEK invited me to speak on the blockchain panel. 71. Blockchain And Opportunities for Healthcare Access to efficient, affordable, and scientifically progressive healthcare is one of the key necessities of modern life, affecting everyone on a global basis. Thank you for checking out the 71 most read stories about Blockchain Application on HackerNoon. to find the most read stories about any technology. Visit the /Learn Repo

71 Stories To Learn About Blockchain Application

ADDENDA TO VOL. I.

Christian Science by Mark Twain, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . APPENDIX A here APPENDIX A ORIGINAL FIRST PREFACE TO SCIENCE AND HEALTH There seems a Christian necessity of learning God's power and purpose to heal both mind and body. This thought grew out of our early seeking Him in all our ways, and a hopeless as singular invalidism that drugs increased instead of diminished, and hygiene benefited only for a season. By degrees we have drifted into more spiritual latitudes of thought, and experimented as we advanced until demonstrating fully the power of mind over the body. About the year 1862, having heard of a mesmerist in Portland who was treating the sick by manipulation, we visited him; he helped us for a time, then we relapsed somewhat. After his decease, and a severe casualty deemed fatal by skilful physicians, we discovered that the Principle of all healing and the law that governs it is God, a divine Principle, and a spiritual not material law, and regained health. It was not an individual or mortal mind acting upon another so-called mind that healed us. It was the glorious truths of Christian Science that we discovered as we neared that verge of so-called material life named death; yea, it was the great Shekinah, the spirit of Life, Truth, and Love illuminating our understanding of the action and might of Omnipotence! The old gentleman to whom we have referred had some very advanced views on healing, but he was not avowedly religious neither scholarly. We interchanged thoughts on the subject of healing the sick. I restored some patients of his that he failed to heal, and left in his possession some manuscripts of mine containing corrections of his desultory pennings, which I am informed at his decease passed into the hands of a patient of his, now residing in Scotland. He died in 1865 and left no published works. The only manuscript that we ever held of his, longer than to correct it, was one of perhaps a dozen pages, most of which we had composed. He manipulated the sick; hence his ostensible method of healing was physical instead of mental. We helped him in the esteem of the public by our writings, but never knew of his stating orally or in writing that he treated his patients mentally; never heard him give any directions to that effect; and have it from one of his patients, who now asserts that he was the founder of mental healing, that he never revealed to anyone his method. We refer to these facts simply to refute the calumnies and false claims of our enemies, that we are preferring dishonest claims to the discovery and founding at this period of Metaphysical Healing or Christian Science. The Science and laws of a purely mental healing and their method of application through spiritual power alone, else a mental argument against disease, are our own discovery at this date. True, the Principle is divine and eternal, but the application of it to heal the sick had been lost sight of, and required to be again spiritually discerned and its science discovered, that man might retain it through the understanding. Since our discovery in 1866 of the divine science of Christian Healing, we have labored with tongue and pen to found this system. In this endeavor every obstacle has been thrown in our path that the envy and revenge of a few disaffected students could devise. The superstition and ignorance of even this period have not failed to contribute their mite towards misjudging us, while its Christian advancement and scientific research have helped sustain our feeble efforts. Since our first Edition of Science and Health, published in 1875, two of the aforesaid students have plagiarized and pirated our works. In the issues of E. J. A., almost exclusively ours, were thirteen paragraphs, without credit, taken verbatim from our books. Not one of our printed works was ever copied or abstracted from the published or from the unpublished writings of anyone. Throughout our publications of Metaphysical Healing or Christian Science, when writing or dictating them, we have given ourselves to contemplation wholly apart from the observation of the material senses: to look upon a copy would have distracted our thoughts from the subject before us. We were seldom able to copy our own compositions, and have employed an amanuensis for the last six years. Every work that we have had published has been extemporaneously written; and out of fifty lectures and sermons that we have delivered the last year, forty-four have been extemporaneous. We have distributed many of our unpublished manuscripts; loaned to one of our youngest students, R. K————y, between three and four hundred pages, of which we were sole author—giving him liberty to copy but not to publish them. Leaning on the sustaining Infinite with loving trust, the trials of to-day grow brief, and to-morrow is big with blessings. The wakeful shepherd, tending his flocks, beholds from the mountain's top the first faint morning beam ere cometh the risen day. So from Soul's loftier summits shines the pale star to prophet-shepherd, and it traverses night, over to where the young child lies, in cradled obscurity, that shall waken a world. Over the night of error dawn the morning beams and guiding star of Truth, and “the wise men” are led by it to Science, which repeats the eternal harmony that it reproduced, in proof of immortality. The time for thinkers has come; and the time for revolutions, ecclesiastical and civil, must come. Truth, independent of doctrines or time-honored systems, stands at the threshold of history. Contentment with the past, or the cold conventionality of custom, may no longer shut the door on science; though empires fall, “He whose right it is shall reign.” Ignorance of God should no longer be the stepping-stone to faith; understanding Him, “whom to know aright is Life eternal,” is the only guaranty of obedience. This volume may not open a new thought, and make it at once familiar. It has the sturdy task of a pioneer, to hack away at the tall oaks and cut the rough granite, leaving future ages to declare what it has done. We made our first discovery of the adaptation of metaphysics to the treatment of disease in the winter of 1866; since then we have tested the Principle on ourselves and others, and never found it to fail to prove the statements herein made of it. We must learn the science of Life, to reach the perfection of man. To understand God as the Principle of all being, and to live in accordance with this Principle, is the Science of Life. But to reproduce this harmony of being, the error of personal sense must yield to science, even as the science of music corrects tones caught from the ear, and gives the sweet concord of sound. There are many theories of physic and theology, and many calls in each of their directions for the right way; but we propose to settle the question of “What is Truth?” on the ground of proof, and let that method of healing the sick and establishing Christianity be adopted that is found to give the most health and to make the best Christians; science will then have a fair field, in which case we are assured of its triumph over all opinions and beliefs. Sickness and sin have ever had their doctors; but the question is, Have they become less because of them? The longevity of our antediluvians would say, No! and the criminal records of today utter their voices little in favor of such a conclusion. Not that we would deny to Caesar the things that are his, but that we ask for the things that belong to Truth; and safely affirm, from the demonstrations we have been able to make, that the science of man understood would have eradicated sin, sickness, and death, in a less period than six thousand years. We find great difficulties in starting this work right. Some shockingly false claims are already made to a metaphysical practice; mesmerism, its very antipodes, is one of them. Hitherto we have never, in a single instance of our discovery, found the slightest resemblance between mesmerism and metaphysics. No especial idiosyncrasy is requisite to acquire a knowledge of metaphysical healing; spiritual sense is more important to its discernment than the intellect; and those who would learn this science without a high moral standard of thought and action, will fail to understand it until they go up higher. Owing to our explanations constantly vibrating between the same points, an irksome repetition of words must occur; also the use of capital letters, genders, and technicalities peculiar to the science. Variety of language, or beauty of diction, must give place to close analysis and unembellished thought. “Hoping all things, enduring all things,” to do good to our enemies, to bless them that curse us, and to bear to the sorrowing and the sick consolation and healing, we commit these pages to posterity. MARY BAKER G. EDDY. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Mark Twain (2004). Christian Science. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3187/pg3187-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

ORIGINAL FIRST PREFACE TO SCIENCE AND HEALTH

Oracle vs. Google (2014) Court Filing, retrieved on May 9, 2014, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 12 of 16. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 3. Google’s Interoperability Arguments are Irrelevant to Copyrightability Oracle also argues that the district court erred in invoking interoperability in its copyrightability analysis. Specifically, Oracle argues that Google’s interoperability arguments are only relevant, if at all, to fair use—not to the question of whether the API packages are copyrightable. We agree. In characterizing the SSO of the Java API packages as a “method of operation,” the district court explained that “[d]uplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability.” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 977. The court found that, “[i]n order for at least some of [the pre-Android Java] code to run on Android, Google was required to provide the same java.package.Class.method() command system using the same names with the same ‘taxonomy’ and with the same functional specifications.” Id. at 1000 (emphasis omitted). And, the court concluded that “Google replicated what was necessary to achieve a degree of interoperability—but no more, taking care, as said before, to provide its own implementations.” Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied primarily on two Ninth Circuit decisions: Sega Enterprises v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992), and Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix, Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000). Both Sega and Sony are fair use cases in which copyrightability was addressed only tangentially. In Sega, for example, Sega manufactured a video game console and game cartridges that contained hidden functional program elements necessary to achieve compatibility with the console. Defendant Accolade: (1) reverse-engineered Sega’s video game programs to discover the requirements for compatibility; and (2) created its own games for the Sega console. Sega, 977 F.2d at 1514-15. As part of the reverse-engineering process, Accolade made intermediate copies of object code from Sega’s console. Id. Although the court recognized that the intermediate copying of computer code may infringe Sega’s copyright, it concluded that “disassembly of copyrighted object code is, as a matter of law, a fair use of the copyrighted work if such disassembly provides the only means of access to those elements of the code that are not protected by copyright and the copier has a legitimate reason for seeking such access.” Id. at 1518. The court agreed with Accolade that its copying was necessary to examine the unprotected functional aspects of the program. Id. at 1520. And, because Accolade had a legitimate interest in making its cartridges compatible with Sega’s console, the court found that Accolade’s intermediate copying was fair use. Likewise, in Sony, the Ninth Circuit found that the defendant’s reverse engineering and intermediate copying of Sony’s copyrighted software program “was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony’s software.” Sony, 203 F.3d at 602. The court explained that Sony’s software program contained unprotected functional elements and that the defendant could only access those elements through reverse engineering. Id. at 603. The defendant used that information to create a software program that let consumers play games designed for Sony’s PlayStation console on their computers. Notably, the defendant’s software program did not contain any of Sony’s copyrighted material. Id. at 598. As noted, both cases were focused on fair use, not copyrightability. In Sega, for example, the only question was whether Accolade’s intermediate copying was fair use. The court never addressed the question of whether Sega’s software code, which had functional elements, also contained separable creative expression entitled to protection. Likewise, although the court in Sony determined that Sony’s computer program had functional elements, it never addressed whether it also had expressive elements. Sega and Sony are also factually distinguishable because the defendants in those cases made intermediate copies to understand the functional aspects of the copyrighted works and then created new products. See Sony, 203 F.3d at 606-07; Sega, 977 F.2d at 1522-23. This is not a case where Google reverse-engineered Oracle’s Java packages to gain access to unprotected functional elements contained therein. As the former Register of Copyrights of the United States pointed out in his brief amicus curiae, “[h]ad Google reverse engineered the programming packages to figure out the ideas and functionality of the original, and then created its own structure and its own literal code, Oracle would have no remedy under copyright whatsoever.” Br. for Amicus Curiae Ralph Oman 29. Instead, Google chose to copy both the declaring code and the overall SSO of the 37 Java API packages at issue. We disagree with Google’s suggestion that Sony and Sega created an “interoperability exception” to copyrightability. See Appellee Br. 39 (citing Sony and Sega for the proposition that “compatibility elements are not copyrightable under section 102(b)” (emphasis omitted)). Although both cases recognized that the software programs at issue there contained unprotected functional elements, a determination that some elements are unprotected is not the same as saying that the entire work loses copyright protection. To accept Google’s reading would contradict Ninth Circuit case law recognizing that both the literal and non-literal components of a software program are eligible for copyright protection. See Johnson Controls, 886 F.2d at 1175. And it would ignore the fact that the Ninth Circuit endorsed the abstractionfiltration-comparison inquiry in Sega itself. As previously discussed, a court must examine the software program to determine whether it contains creative expression that can be separated from the underlying function. See Sega, 977 F.2d at 1524-25. In doing so, the court filters out the elements of the program that are “ideas” as well as elements that are “dictated by considerations of efficiency, so as to be necessarily incidental to that idea; required by factors external to the program itself.” Altai, 982 F.2d at 707. To determine “whether certain aspects of an allegedly infringed software are not protected by copyright law, the focus is on external factors that influenced the choice of the creator of the infringed product.” Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs., Inc. v. Grace Consulting, Inc., 307 F.3d 197, 215 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Altai, 982 F.2d at 714; Mitel, 124 F.3d at 1375). The Second Circuit, for example, has noted that programmers are often constrained in their design choices by “extrinsic considerations” including “the mechanical specifications of the computer on which a particular program is intended to run” and “compatibility requirements of other programs with which a program is designed to operate in conjunction.” Altai, 982 F.2d at 709-10 (citing 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.01 at 13-66-71 (1991)). The Ninth Circuit has likewise recognized that: (1) computer programs “contain many logical, structural, and visual display elements that are dictated by . . . external factors such as compatibility requirements and industry demands”; and (2) “[i]n some circumstances, even the exact set of commands used by the programmer is deemed functional rather than creative for purposes of copyright.” Sega, 977 F.2d at 1524 (internal citation omitted). Because copyrightability is focused on the choices available to the plaintiff at the time the computer program was created, the relevant compatibility inquiry asks whether the plaintiff’s choices were dictated by a need to ensure that its program worked with existing third-party programs. Dun & Bradstreet, 307 F.3d at 215; see also Atari, 975 F.2d at 840 (“External factors did not dictate the design of the 10NES program.”). Whether a defendant later seeks to make its program interoperable with the plaintiff’s program has no bearing on whether the software the plaintiff created had any design limitations dictated by external factors. See Dun & Bradstreet, 307 F.3d at 215 (finding an expert’s testimony on interoperability “wholly misplaced” because he “looked at externalities from the eyes of the plagiarist, not the eyes of the program’s creator”). Stated differently, the focus is on the compatibility needs and programming choices of the party claiming copyright protection—not the choices the defendant made to achieve compatibility with the plaintiff’s program. Consistent with this approach, courts have recognized that, once the plaintiff creates a copyrightable work, a defendant’s desire “to achieve total compatibility . . . is a commercial and competitive objective which does not enter into the . . . issue of whether particular ideas and expressions have merged.” Apple Computer, 714 F.2d at 1253. Given this precedent, we conclude that the district court erred in focusing its interoperability analysis on Google’s desires for its Android software. See Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 1000 (“Google replicated what was necessary to achieve a degree of interoperability” with Java.). Whether Google’s software is “interoperable” in some sense with any aspect of the Java platform (although as Google concedes, certainly not with the JVM) has no bearing on the threshold question of whether Oracle’s software is copyrightable. It is the interoperability and other needs of Oracle—not those of Google—that apply in the copyrightability context, and there is no evidence that when Oracle created the Java API packages at issue it did so to meet compatibility requirements of other pre-existing programs. Google maintains on appeal that its use of the “Java class and method names and declarations was ‘the only and essential means’ of achieving a degree of interoperability with existing programs written in the [Java language].” Appellee Br. 49. Indeed, given the record evidence that Google designed Android so that it would not be compatible with the Java platform, or the JVM specifically, we find Google’s interoperability argument confusing. While Google repeatedly cites to the district court’s finding that Google had to copy the packages so that an app written in Java could run on Android, it cites to no evidence in the record that any such app exists and points to no Java apps that either pre-dated or post-dated Android that could run on the Android platform.[15] The compatibility Google sought to foster was not with Oracle’s Java platform or with the JVM central to that platform. Instead, Google wanted to capitalize on the fact that software developers were already trained and experienced in using the Java API packages at issue. The district court agreed, finding that, as to the 37 Java API packages, “Google believed Java application programmers would want to find the same 37 sets of functionalities in the new Android system callable by the same names as used in Java.” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 978. Google’s interest was in accelerating its development process by “leverag[ing] Java for its existing base of developers.” J.A. 2033, 2092. Although this competitive objective might be relevant to the fair use inquiry, we conclude that it is irrelevant to the copyrightability of Oracle’s declaring code and organization of the API packages. Finally, to the extent Google suggests that it was entitled to copy the Java API packages because they had become the effective industry standard, we are unpersuaded. Google cites no authority for its suggestion that copyrighted works lose protection when they become popular, and we have found none.[16] In fact, the Ninth Circuit has rejected the argument that a work that later becomes the industry standard is uncopyrightable. See Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 121 F.3d 516, 520 n.8 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that the district court found plaintiff’s medical coding system entitled to copyright protection, and that, although the system had become the industry standard, plaintiff’s copyright did not prevent competitors “from developing comparative or better coding systems and lobbying the federal government and private actors to adopt them. It simply prevents wholesale copying of an existing system.”). Google was free to develop its own API packages and to “lobby” programmers to adopt them. Instead, it chose to copy Oracle’s declaring code and the SSO to capitalize on the preexisting community of programmers who were accustomed to using the Java API packages. That desire has nothing to do with copyrightability. For these reasons, we find that Google’s industry standard argument has no bearing on the copyrightability of Oracle’s work. [15] During oral argument, Google’s counsel stated that “a program written in the Java language can run on Android if it’s only using packages within the 37. So if I’m a developer and I have written a program, I’ve written it in Java, I can stick an Android header on it and it will run in Android because it is using the identical names of the classes, methods, and packages.” Oral Argument at 31:31. Counsel did not identify any programs that use only the 37 API packages at issue, however, and did not attest that any such program would be useful. Nor did Google cite to any record evidence to support this claim. [16] Google argues that, in the same way a formerly distinctive trademark can become generic over time, a program element can lose copyright protection when it becomes an industry standard. But “it is to be expected that phrases and other fragments of expression in a highly successful copyrighted work will become part of the language. That does not mean they lose all protection in the manner of a trade name that has become generic.” Warner Bros., Inc. v. Am. Broadcasting Cos., 720 F.2d 231, 242 (2d Cir. 1983) (“No matter how well known a copyrighted phrase becomes, its author is entitled to guard against its appropriation to promote the sale of commercial products.”). Notably, even when a patented method or system becomes an acknowledged industry standard with acquiescence of the patent owner, any permissible use generally requires payment of a reasonable royalty, which Google refused to do here. See generally In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, No. 11-C-9308, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144061 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2013). Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 10-CV-3561 retrieved on September 22, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. law.justia.com

Oracle Disagrees With Google’s Suggestion That Sony, Sega Created Exception to Copyrightability

Oracle vs. Google (2014) Court Filing, retrieved on May 9, 2014, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 6 of 16. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here A. Copyrightability The Copyright Act provides protection to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,” including “literary works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). It is undisputed that computer programs— defined in the Copyright Act as “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result,” 17 U.S.C. § 101—can be subject to copyright protection as “literary works.” See Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 838 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As literary works, copyright protection extends to computer programs.”). Indeed, the legislative history explains that “literary works” includes “computer programs to the extent that they incorporate authorship in the programmer’s expression of original ideas, as distinguished from the ideas themselves.” H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 54, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5667. By statute, a work must be “original” to qualify for copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). This “originality requirement is not particularly stringent,” however. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 358 (1991). “Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” Id. at 345. Copyright protection extends only to the expression of an idea—not to the underlying idea itself. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954) (“Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea—not the idea itself.”). This distinction—commonly referred to as the “idea/expression dichotomy”—is codified in Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act, which provides: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); see Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 890 (2012) (“The idea/expression dichotomy is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).”). The idea/expression dichotomy traces back to the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 101 (1879). In Baker, the plaintiff Selden wrote and obtained copyrights on a series of books setting out a new system of bookkeeping. Id. at 100. The books included an introductory essay explaining the system and blank forms with ruled lines and headings designed for use with that system. Id. Baker published account books employing a system with similar forms, and Selden filed suit alleging copyright infringement. According to Selden, the “ruled lines and headings, given to illustrate the system, are a part of the book” and “no one can make or use similar ruled lines and headings, or ruled lines and headings made and arranged on substantially the same system, without violating the copyright.” Id. at 101. The Supreme Court framed the issue on appeal in Baker as “whether the exclusive property in a system of book-keeping can be claimed, under the law of copyright, by means of a book in which that system is explained.” Id. In reversing the circuit court’s decision, the Court concluded that the “copyright of a book on book-keeping cannot secure the exclusive right to make, sell, and use account-books prepared upon the plan set forth in such book.” Id. at 104. Likewise, the “copyright of a work on mathematical science cannot give to the author an exclusive right to the methods of operation which he propounds.” Id. at 103. The Court found that, although the copyright protects the way Selden “explained and described a peculiar system of book-keeping,” it does not prevent others from using the system described therein. Id. at 104. The Court further indicated that, if it is necessary to use the forms Selden included in his books to make use of the accounting system, that use would not amount to copyright infringement. See id. (noting that the public has the right to use the account-books and that, “in using the art, the ruled lines and headings of accounts must necessarily be used as incident to it”). Courts routinely cite Baker as the source of several principles incorporated into Section 102(b) that relate to this appeal, including that: (1) copyright protection extends only to expression, not to ideas, systems, or processes; and (2) “those elements of a computer program that are necessarily incidental to its function are . . . unprotectable.” See Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1992) (“Altai”) (discussing Baker, 101 U.S. at 103-04). It is well established that copyright protection can extend to both literal and non-literal elements of a computer program. See Altai, 982 F.2d at 702. The literal elements of a computer program are the source code and object code. See Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., Inc., 886 F.2d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 1989). Courts have defined source code as “the spelled-out program commands that humans can read.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522, 533 (6th Cir. 2004). Object code refers to “the binary language comprised of zeros and ones through which the computer directly receives its instructions.” Altai, 982 F.2d at 698. Both source and object code “are consistently held protected by a copyright on the program.” Johnson Controls, 886 F.2d at 1175; see also Altai, 982 F.2d at 702 (“It is now well settled that the literal elements of computer programs, i.e., their source and object codes, are the subject of copyright protection.”). Google nowhere disputes that premise. See, e.g., Oral Argument at 57:38. The non-literal components of a computer program include, among other things, the program’s sequence, structure, and organization, as well as the program’s user interface. Johnson Controls, 886 F.2d at 1175. As discussed below, whether the non-literal elements of a program “are protected depends on whether, on the particular facts of each case, the component in question qualifies as an expression of an idea, or an idea itself.” Id. In this case, Oracle claims copyright protection with respect to both: (1) literal elements of its API packages— the 7,000 lines of declaring source code; and (2) non-literal elements—the structure, sequence, and organization of each of the 37 Java API packages. The distinction between literal and non-literal aspects of a computer program is separate from the distinction between literal and non-literal copying. See Altai, 982 F.2d at 701-02. “Literal” copying is verbatim copying of original expression. “Non-literal” copying is “paraphrased or loosely paraphrased rather than word for word.” Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, 49 F.3d 807, 814 (1st Cir. 1995). Here, Google concedes that it copied the declaring code verbatim. Oracle explains that the lines of declaring code “embody the structure of each [API] package, just as the chapter titles and topic sentences represent the structure of a novel.” Appellant Br. 45. As Oracle explains, when Google copied the declaring code in these packages “it also copied the ‘sequence and organization’ of the packages (i.e., the three-dimensional structure with all the chutes and ladders)” employed by Sun/Oracle in the packages. Appellant Br. 27. Oracle also argues that the nonliteral elements of the API packages—the structure, sequence, and organization that led naturally to the implementing code Google created—are entitled to protection. Oracle does not assert “literal” copying of the entire SSO, but, rather, that Google literally copied the declaring code and then paraphrased the remainder of the SSO by writing its own implementing code. It therefore asserts non-literal copying with respect to the entirety of the SSO. At this stage, it is undisputed that the declaring code and the structure and organization of the Java API packages are original. The testimony at trial revealed that designing the Java API packages was a creative process and that the Sun/Oracle developers had a vast range of options for the structure and organization. In its copyrightability decision, the district court specifically found that the API packages are both creative and original, and Google concedes on appeal that the originality requirements are met. See Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 976 (“The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements . . . .”); Id. at 999 (“Yes, it is creative. Yes, it is original.”); Appellee Br. 5 (“Google does not dispute” the district court’s finding that “the Java API clears the low originality threshold.”). The court found, however, that neither the declaring code nor the SSO was entitled to copyright protection under the Copyright Act. Although the parties agree that Oracle’s API packages meet the originality requirement under Section 102(a), they disagree as to the proper interpretation and application of Section 102(b). For its part, Google suggests that there is a two-step copyrightability analysis, wherein Section 102(a) grants copyright protection to original works, while Section 102(b) takes it away if the work has a functional component. To the contrary, however, Congress emphasized that Section 102(b) “in no way enlarges or contracts the scope of copyright protection” and that its “purpose is to restate . . . that the basic dichotomy between expression and idea remains unchanged.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 356 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 54, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5670). “Section 102(b) does not extinguish the protection accorded a particular expression of an idea merely because that expression is embodied in a method of operation.” Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366, 1372 (10th Cir. 1997). Section 102(a) and 102(b) are to be considered collectively so that certain expressions are subject to greater scrutiny. Id. In assessing copyrightability, the district court is required to ferret out apparent expressive aspects of a work and then separate protectable expression from “unprotectable ideas, facts, processes, and methods of operation.” See Atari, 975 F.2d at 839. Of course, as with many things, in defining this task, the devil is in the details. Circuit courts have struggled with, and disagree over, the tests to be employed when attempting to draw the line between what is protectable expression and what is not. Compare Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222, 1236 (3d Cir. 1986) (everything not necessary to the purpose or function of a work is expression), with Lotus, 49 F.3d at 815 (methods of operation are means by which a user operates something and any words used to effectuate that operation are unprotected expression). When assessing whether the non-literal elements of a computer program constitute protectable expression, the Ninth Circuit has endorsed an “abstraction-filtration-comparison” test formulated by the Second Circuit and expressly adopted by several other circuits. Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1525 (9th Cir. 1992) (“In our view, in light of the essentially utilitarian nature of computer programs, the Second Circuit’s approach is an appropriate one.”). This test rejects the notion that anything that performs a function is necessarily uncopyrightable. See Mitel, 124 F.3d at 1372 (rejecting the Lotus court’s formulation, and concluding that, “although an element of a work may be characterized as a method of operation, that element may nevertheless contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection.”). And it also rejects as flawed the Whelan assumption that, once any separable idea can be identified in a computer program everything else must be protectable expression, on grounds that more than one idea may be embodied in any particular program. Altai, 982 F.2d at 705-06. Thus, this test eschews bright line approaches and requires a more nuanced assessment of the particular program at issue in order to determine what expression is protectable and infringed. As the Second Circuit explains, this test has three steps. In the abstraction step, the court “first break[s] down the allegedly infringed program into its constituent structural parts.” Id. at 706. In the filtration step, the court “sift[s] out all non-protectable material,” including ideas and “expression that is necessarily incidental to those ideas.” Id. In the final step, the court compares the remaining creative expression with the allegedly infringing program.[4] In the second step, the court is first to assess whether the expression is original to the programmer or author. Atari, 975 F.2d at 839. The court must then determine whether the particular inclusion of any level of abstraction is dictated by considerations of efficiency, required by factors already external to the program itself, or taken from the public domain—all of which would render the expression unprotectable. Id. These conclusions are to be informed by traditional copyright principles of originality, merger, and scenes a faire. See Mitel, 124 F.3d at 1372 (“Although this core of expression is eligible for copyright protection, it is subject to the rigors of filtration analysis which excludes from protection expression that is in the public domain, otherwise unoriginal, or subject to the doctrines of merger and scenes a faire.”). In all circuits, it is clear that the first step is part of the copyrightability analysis and that the third is an infringement question. It is at the second step of this analysis where the circuits are in less accord. Some treat all aspects of this second step as part of the copyrightability analysis, while others divide questions of originality from the other inquiries, treating the former as a question of copyrightability and the latter as part of the infringement inquiry. Compare Lexmark, 387 F.3d at 537-38 (finding that the district court erred in assessing principles of merger and scenes a faire in the infringement analysis, rather than as a component of copyrightability), with Kregos, 937 F.2d at 705 (noting that the Second Circuit has considered the merger doctrine “in determining whether actionable infringement has occurred, rather than whether a copyright is valid”); see also Lexmark, 387 F.3d at 557 (Feikens, J., dissenting-in-part) (noting the circuit split and concluding that, where a court is assessing merger of an expression with a method of operation, “I would find the merger doctrine can operate only as a defense to infringement in that context, and as such has no bearing on the question of copyrightability.”). We need not assess the wisdom of these respective views because there is no doubt on which side of this circuit split the Ninth Circuit falls. lity are considered questions of copyrightability, concepts of merger and scenes a faire are affirmative defenses to claims of infringement. Ets-Hokin, 225 F.3d at 1082; Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 810 n.3 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The Ninth Circuit treats scenes a faire as a defense to infringement rather than as a barrier to copyrightability.”). The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “there is some disagreement among courts as to whether these two doctrines figure into the issue of copyrightability or are more properly defenses to infringement.” EtsHokin, 225 F.3d at 1082 (citations omitted). It, nonetheless, has made clear that, in that circuit, these concepts are to be treated as defenses to infringement. Id. (citing Kregos, 937 F.2d at 705 (holding that the merger doctrine relates to infringement, not copyrightability); Reed-Union Corp. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 77 F.3d 909, 914 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining why the doctrine of scenes a faire is separate from the validity of a copyright)). With these principles in mind, we turn to the trial court’s analysis and judgment and to Oracle’s objections thereto. While the trial court mentioned the abstractionfiltration-comparison test when describing the development of relevant law, it did not purport to actually apply that test. Instead, it moved directly to application of familiar principles of copyright law when assessing the copyrightability of the declaring code and interpreted Section 102(b) to preclude copyrightability for any functional element “essential for interoperability” “regardless of its form.” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 997. Oracle asserts that all of the trial court’s conclusions regarding copyrightability are erroneous. Oracle argues that its Java API packages are entitled to protection under the Copyright Act because they are expressive and could have been written and organized in any number of ways to achieve the same functions. Specifically, Oracle argues that the district court erred when it: (1) concluded that each line of declaring code is uncopyrightable because the idea and expression have merged; (2) found the declaring code uncopyrightable because it employs short phrases; (3) found all aspects of the SSO devoid of protection as a “method of operation” under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); and (4) invoked Google’s “interoperability” concerns in the copyrightability analysis. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Oracle on each point. [4] Importantly, this full analysis only applies where a copyright owner alleges infringement of the non-literal aspects of its work. Where “admitted literal copying of a discrete, easily-conceptualized portion of a work” is at issue—as with Oracle’s declaring code—a court “need not perform a complete abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis” and may focus the protectability analysis on the filtration stage, with attendant reference to standard copyright principles. Mitel, 124 F.3d at 1372-73. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 10-CV-3561 retrieved on September 22, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. law.justia.com

MITEK SYSTEMS

miteksystems.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

MITEK SYSTEMS

EVERGREEN INDEX #37

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Mitek Systems WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

MITEK SYSTEMS

miteksystems.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

MITEK SYSTEMS

EVERGREEN INDEX #37

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT MITEK SYSTEMS

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Mitek Systems WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!