<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Replying to both Heather and Pam in a combined email:<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:01 PM Meeker, Heather J. <<a href="mailto:hmeeker@omm.com" target="_blank">hmeeker@omm.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_4151317172480911811m_-4992449015978005203m_6050143220143426146WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">I am writing on behalf of MongoDB on the copyright misuse questions raised in this discussion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">Copyright misuse is an equitable defense against infringement claims. It has been acknowledged in several US circuits but not all of them, and
it is not often successful. </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree. I might add, for completeness, that the corresponding doctrine of patent misuse is slightly out of favor.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_4151317172480911811m_-4992449015978005203m_6050143220143426146WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"> In almost all cases where courts declined to enforce a copyright license violation due to copyright misuse, the misuse consisted of anticompetitive behavior similar to actions that would compose antitrust liability. </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The courts have been explicit that misuse may rise to the level of an antitrust claim, but that the bar for misuse as a defense is lower. There is no need to attempt actions that would implicate antitrust liability to bring in the doctrine of misuse.<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_4151317172480911811m_-4992449015978005203m_6050143220143426146WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">For example, in Lasercomb, the license agreement required the licensee to agree not to develop a competitive computer-aided design program for
99 years. Lasercomb America v. Reynolds. 911 F.2d 970, 15 USPQ2d 1846 (4th Cir. 1990). In Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) the AMA licensed “CPT” health care codes (in which the AMA claimed a copyright)
on a condition that the licensee not use any other such competing codes. In Assessment Technologies v. WIREdata. 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003), the copyright holder tried to limit the licensee’s access to the licensee’s own data stored using the software.
This defense is almost always applied to prevent a copyright holder from leveraging its copyright to impose anti-competitive practices.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">This is not a general rule that imposing any license condition not directly relating to copyright is unenforceable.
</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You accurately summarize the cases cited above. I also mostly agree with your statement that there is "not a general rule that imposing any license condition not directly relating to copyright is unenforceable." However: 1) the scope of license conditions beyond the scope of the copyrighted work generally sound in <i>contract,</i> not in <i>copyright</i>, and 2) attempts to impose additional control on downstream behavior <i>using copyright infringement as leverage </i>is what gives rise to the defense of copyright misuse. Given that the trigger is conditioned on copyright, I maintain that misuse is still an issue.</div><div><br></div><div>The basic reason why is because the scope of what the SSPL sweeps in is <i>intentionally</i> vast. For example, assume Amazon was sued under the SSPL. There are large
amounts of proprietary shared infrastructure (perhaps all of EC2) that
would be swept into the scope of the SSPL under the current language. In this example, the proprietary shared infrastructure encompasses a number of unique works, not directly related to MongoDB, but which would need to be SSPL'd.</div><div><br></div><div>Given the key issue of the licensing of other intellectual property, I reviewed
the cases to see if there was something closer on point. The closest
that I can find on point are a number of cases concerning SanDisk's
flash memory licensing program. SanDisk had a patent licensing program
that required any licensee to provide a grant-back license to any
subsequently-developed patents in the same field of use. Two courts
examined SanDisk's program under both the antitrust and patent misuse
angles [1][2]. <br></div><div><div><div><br></div><div>[1]<span class="gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942shepsignal"></span> PNY Techs., Inc. v. SanDisk Corp., N.D.Cal, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55965</div><div>[2] Sandisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co. W.D.Wisc, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152534</div><div><br></div><div>The
issue was not fully litigated, but it does seem that forced licensing
would be enough to get to court. The court in Footnote 8 in <i>PNY Techs</i> states: "At best, PNY alleges <span name="SH_960998305_B"></span><span class="gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_SH gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SH_960998305 gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_prior gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_tu2">patent misuse</span><span name="SH_960998305_E"></span> through this licensing <a href="https://advance.lexis.com/document/teaserdocument/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=be638260-7f95-4327-93a4-ba813b1413c7&pdteaserkey=h1&pditab=allpods&ecomp=5pkLk&earg=sr6&prid=d3c3ef49-536b-428f-b14a-949e07bce944#" name="m_4151317172480911811_m_-3240656799862381942_PAGE_1293" id="gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942PAGE_38_1293" class="gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_Pag_Active" target="_blank"></a>provision.
Complaint 90. While this may suffice as an equitable defense to a
patent infringement lawsuit, it stops well short of establishing a
Sherman Act violation." <br></div><div><br></div><div>And in <i>Sandisk</i>:
"Thus, it is appropriate to consider whether, as a whole, the assorted
requirements plaintiff imposes on those who would participate in the
flash memory markets are anticompetitive and threaten to harm
competition. At this early stage of the proceedings, defendants'
allegations suffice....Finally, the licensing terms include <span name="SH_877866904_B"></span><span class="gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_SH gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SH_877866904 gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_prior gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_tu1" style="font-weight:bold">cross-license</span><span name="SH_877866904_E"></span> provisions under which plaintiff may use the fruits of a licensee's new inventions. Such <span name="SH_877866904_B"></span><span class="gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_SH gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SH_877866904 gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_prior gmail-m_4151317172480911811gmail-m_-3240656799862381942SS_tu1" style="font-weight:bold">cross-license</span><span name="SH_877866904_E"></span>
provisions would reduce incentives to create innovative, non-infringing
methods [*28] that could compete in the flash memory markets because
plaintiff would be able to use the innovation.<br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div>Of course, we wouldn't know whether the defense actually be successful in court, and these are patent misuse, not copyright misuse, so a court would need to adapt the precedent. But these cases strike me closely analogous.</div><div><br></div><div><div>(As an aside, note the courts making the point I did
above: actions that are misuse under the law need not rise to the level
of an antitrust violation.)</div><div><br></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_4151317172480911811m_-4992449015978005203m_6050143220143426146WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">GPL itself has been challenged as an antitrust violation in the SCO case back in 2003, and in a later case where the 7th Circuit said, “The GPL
and open-source have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws." Wallace v. IBM, 467 F.3d 1104 (2006).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">Sharing of source code is just not an anticompetitive practice. The SSPL imposes no restrictions on the use of the software and requires licensee
to make no covenants limiting the licensee’s right to conduct business.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Given the precedents above, I don't think that "is this an antitrust violation" is the right bar. It is "does the license attempt to control other works beyond the scope of the government grant," and I think it does. Is it <i>per se</i> unenforceable? There is no law directly on point, so not right now - but court would not grant summary judgment on this issue either way. I think that there would be an issue with the OSI accepting a license with such an infirmity.<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Replying now to Pam:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" style="margin-left:40px"><div class="gmail-m_5090375244992463949moz-cite-prefix">On 10/18/18 8:53 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="gmail-m_5090375244992463949gmail-SS_LeftAlign"><span class="gmail-m_5090375244992463949gmail-SS_RFCPassage_Deactivated"><span class="gmail-m_5090375244992463949gmail-SS_CRBHighlight">the entire purpose of the SSPL
is to prevent competition to MongoDB by copies that would
otherwise be lawful ...<br>
</span></span></span></blockquote>
Van, this is where you're losing me. What are the "lawful copies"?
If the licensee hasn't complied with the terms of the license,
paragraph 13 in particular, then they don't have lawful copies. You
point seems circular to me.</div><div class="gmail_quote" style="margin-left:40px"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">I did not state this well, thanks for pointing that out. Better stated, perhaps: The Lasercomb court says: "The misuse arises from Lasercomb's attempt to ... control competition in an area outside the copyright, i.e., the idea of computer-assisted die manufacture". The "competition in an area outside the copyright" is that is lawful. The SaaS services, while clearly related to the underlying server, are not the same as the underlying Work being licensed.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote" style="margin-left:40px">
<br>
If you're saying that paragraph 13 would not be construed as a
condition, then you're in contract territory - and I do agree with
that your impossibility argument will often be true. But then query
whether the licensee should be taking the license if they know they
can't comply. Wouldn't there a counterclaim for that? Fraudulent
misrepresentation?</div><div class="gmail_quote" style="margin-left:40px"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Let's think about the context where this would come up: A party ("Service") takes the SSPL'd MongoDB and implements a service. Service releases some code, but there is a dispute between MongoDB and Service as to the scope of the necessary code release. In the ensuing lawsuit, Service raises both misuse (discussed above) and impracticability. Leaving aside the misuse argument, a court could either a) find for Service, thus restricting the scope of the code to be delivered, or b) find for MongoDB, thus giving rise to an immediate defense of frustration, which would undo the contract.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Either way, I don't think that the SSPL would actually work the way MongoDB would want.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">But - to both Heather, Pam, and anyone else: I love understanding how/when I am wrong. Further criticism welcome.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Thanks,<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Van<br></div></div></div>