Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANNETTE L. HURST (SBN 148738)
`ahurst@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
`Telephone: +1 415 773 5700
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 773 5759
`
`WILLIAM W. OXLEY (SBN 136793)
`woxley@orrick.com
`ALYSSA CARIDIS (SBN 260103)
`acaridis@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`355 S. Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: +1 213 629 2020
`Facsimile:
`+1 213 612 2499
`
`Attorneys for GitHub, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`J. DOE 1, et al.,
`Individual and
`Representative Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GITHUB, INC., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION
`
`Case No. 4:22-cv-6823-JST
`
`Consolidated with Case No. 4:22-cv-7074-JST
`DEFENDANTS GITHUB AND
`MICROSOFT’S NOTICE OF MOTIONS
`AND MOTIONS TO DISMISS
`OPERATIVE COMPLAINT IN
`CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS
`Date: May 4, 2023
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Courtroom:
`6, 2d Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. Jon S. Tigar
`
`Complaint Filed: December 7, 2022
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... iii
`NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS .................................................................................. viii
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................. 1
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ISSUES ........................................................................ 1
`ALLEGATIONS OF THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT ............................................................... 2
`
`A. OpenAI Develops A Generative AI Tool Called Codex......................................................... 2
`B. GitHub Offers Copilot, A Code Completion Tool Built On Codex. ...................................... 3
`C.
`Plaintiffs Sue Based On An Attribution Theory. .................................................................... 4
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`C.
`
`PLAINTIFFS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING AND THEREFORE SUBJECT
`MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT ALLEGED ACTUAL OR
`THREATENED INJURY. ...................................................................................................... 5
`A. Plaintiffs’ Lack-Of-Attribution Theory Is Insufficient To Confer Standing. ................ 6
`B.
`Plaintiffs Also Do Not Allege Privacy-Based Injury. .................................................... 8
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A DMCA CLAIM. ............................................................. 8
`A. Plaintiffs Cannot Allege The Required Likelihood Of Infringement. ........................... 9
`B. Count I Impermissibly Lumps Together Multiple Defendants, Claims, And
`Theories Of Liability. ................................................................................................... 12
`Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged That GitHub Or Microsoft Intentionally Or
`Knowingly Removes Or Alters CMI Under § 1202(b). ............................................... 13
`D. Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged That GitHub Or Microsoft Provide,
`Distribute, Or Import For Distribution Any False CMI. .............................................. 14
`III. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A BREACH-OF-LICENSE CLAIM. .............................. 15
`A. Plaintiffs Fail To Specify The Contract Provisions Allegedly Breached. ................... 16
`B. To The Extent Count II Is Based On Training Copilot With Code Found In Public
`Repositories, It Is Foreclosed By GitHub’s Terms Of Service. ................................... 16
`Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged Breach Based On An Output Theory. ............. 17
`C.
`IV. PLAINTIFFS’ TORT AND UCL CLAIMS FAIL. .............................................................. 18
`A. Plaintiffs’ Tort And UCL Claims Are Preempted By The Copyright Act. .................. 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Do Not Plausibly Allege A Contract Or Business Expectancy, Nor
`Defendants’ Knowledge Of One As Required For An Interference With Economic
`Advantage Claim. ......................................................................................................... 20
`Plaintiffs’ Fraud Claim Against GitHub Is Barred By The Economic Loss Rule
`And Fails Rule 9. ......................................................................................................... 21
`D. Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Bring A UCL Unlawful Competition Claim And Fail
`To State A Claim. ......................................................................................................... 22
`V. PLAINTIFFS’ REVERSE PASSING OFF CLAIM IS BARRED UNDER DASTAR. ....... 23
`VI. PLAINTIFFS’ PRIVACY CLAIMS AGAINST GITHUB FAIL. ....................................... 23
`VII. PLAINTIFFS’ UNJUST ENRICHMENT, CONSPIRACY, AND DECLARATORY
`RELIEF ALLEGATIONS FAIL ALONG WITH THE UNDERLYING CLAIMS. ........... 25
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.,
`7 Cal. 4th 503 (1994) .............................................................................................................. 25
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................... 8, 21, 23
`
`Author’s Guild v. Google, Inc.,
`804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Bed, Bath & Beyond of La Jolla, Inc. v. La Jolla Vill. Square Venture Partners,
`52 Cal. App. 4th 867 (1997).................................................................................................... 20
`
`Bosinger v. Belden CDT, Inc.,
`358 F. App’x 812 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 25
`
`Bounce Exchange, Inc. v. Zeus Enter. Ltd.,
`No. 15cv3268, 2015 WL 8579023 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2015) .................................................. 14
`
`Cork v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc.,
`534 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................. 25
`
`Crafty Prods., Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts Co.,
`839 F. App’x 95 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................. 19
`
`Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
`539 U.S. 23 (2003) .................................................................................................................. 23
`
`Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n,
`554 U.S. 724 (2008) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Design Basics, LLC v. WK Olson Architects, Inc.,
`No. 17 C 7432, 2019 WL 527535 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2019) ................................................... 14
`
`Destfino v. Reiswig,
`630 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est.,
`596 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Does v. Advanced Textile Corp.,
`214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`
`Falkner v. Gen. Motors LLC,
`393 F. Supp. 3d 927 (C.D. Cal. 2018)............................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Faulkner Press, L.L.C. v. Class Notes, L.L.C.,
`756 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (N.D. Fl. 2010) .................................................................................... 14
`
`Frost-Tsuji Architects v. Highway Inn, Inc.,
`No. CIV. 13-00496 SOM, 2015 WL 263556 (D. Haw. Jan. 21, 2015), aff’d,
`700 F. App’x 674 (9th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 14
`
`Giddings v. Vison House Prod., Inc.,
`No. CV 05-2963, 2007 WL 2274800 (D. Ariz. Aug. 7, 2007) ............................................... 20
`
`Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) .................................................................................................. 6, 11, 19
`
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
`723 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................... 19
`
`Harrington v. Pinterest, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-05290, 2021 WL 4033031 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2021) ............................................ 10
`
`Hobbs v. Sprague,
`87 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2000) .................................................................................... 25
`
`I.C. v. Zynga, Inc.,
`600 F. Supp. 3d 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2022) .................................................................................... 8
`
`Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc.,
`162 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 2001)................................................................................... 19
`
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`No. 11-MD-02250, 2011 WL 4403963 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) ....................................... 12
`
`Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.,
`9 Cal. 5th 1130 (2020) ...................................................................................................... 20, 21
`
`Jacobsen v. Katzer,
`535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,
`336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,
`77 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 1999)............................................................................... 10, 14
`
`Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc.,
`152 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`
`Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003) .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ............................................................................................................ 23
`
`Lazar v. Superior Ct.,
`12 Cal. 4th 631 (1996) ............................................................................................................ 22
`
`Logan v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 22-cv-01847, 2022 WL 14813836 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2022) ......................................... 15
`
`Lopez v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`505 F. Supp. 3d 961 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 23
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ...................................................................... 15, 16, 18
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ........................................................................................................ 6, 7, 25
`
`Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 18, 20
`
`McGee v. S-L Snacks Nat’l,
`982 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................... 5, 6, 23
`
`Melchior v. New Line Prods., Inc.,
`106 Cal. App. 4th 779 (2003).................................................................................................. 25
`
`Mills v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. CV 19-7618, 2020 WL 548558 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2020) ................................................ 13
`
`Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.,
`649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) ................................................................................... 19
`
`Murphy v. Millennium Radio Grp. LLC,
`650 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
`967 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................. 17
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`Philpot v. Alternet Media, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-4479, 2018 WL 6267876 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2018) ............................................ 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`
`Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.,
`34 Cal. 4th 979 (2004) ............................................................................................................ 22
`
`Rosen v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`164 F. Supp. 3d 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................................. 21
`
`Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,
`977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`SellPoolSuppliesOnline.com, LLC v. Ugly Pools Ariz., Inc.,
`804 F. App’x 668 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) ................................................................................................................ 11
`
`Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................... 9, 10, 11, 12
`
`Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`188 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
`476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................... 22
`
`Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp.,
`517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 23
`
`Thunder Power New Energy Vehicle Dev. Co. v. Byton N. Am. Corp.,
`340 F. Supp. 3d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) .......................................................................................................... 5, 8
`
`United States v. Bestfoods,
`524 U.S. 51 (1998) .................................................................................................................. 12
`
`United States v. Doe,
`655 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1980) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`United States v. Elcom Ltd.,
`203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002) .................................................................................... 9
`
`Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc.,
`328 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Westside Ctr. Assocs. v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc.,
`42 Cal. App. 4th 507 (1996).................................................................................................... 21
`
`Young v. Facebook, Inc.,
`790 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................. 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.
`
`§ 102 ........................................................................................................................................ 18
`§ 103 ........................................................................................................................................ 18
`§ 106 ........................................................................................................................................ 18
`§ 301(a) ............................................................................................................................. 18, 19
`§ 411 .......................................................................................................................................... 6
`§ 1202 .......................................................................................................................... 10, 11, 14
`§ 1202(a) ..................................................................................................................... 10, 15, 16
`§ 1202(b) ......................................................................................................... 10, 11, 14, 15, 16
`§ 1202(c) ........................................................................................................................... 10, 16
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. ...................................................................................... 23
`
`California Civil Code
`
`§ 1798.81.5(d) ......................................................................................................................... 25
`§ 1798.150 ......................................................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`Rule 8 ................................................................................................................................ 12, 16
`Rule 9 ................................................................................................................................ 21, 22
`Rule 10 .................................................................................................................................. 3, 7
`Rule 12(b)(1) ......................................................................................................................... 3, 5
`Rule 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993) ................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 4, 2023 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable
`Jon S. Tigar seated in Courtroom 6 of the United States Courthouse at Oakland, California, with
`appearances to be made by Zoom videoconference unless otherwise ordered by the Court,
`Defendants GitHub, Inc. (“GitHub”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) will, and hereby
`do, move, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9, 10, 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to dismiss
`the operative Complaint in these consolidated actions, filed as ECF No. 1 in the 22-cv-07074
`action (the “Complaint” or “Compl.”), in its entirety as to both GitHub and Microsoft. See ECF
`No. 47 (ordering consolidation and designation of the operative Complaint).
`The grounds for the Motions are as follows. First, the Complaint should be dismissed in
`its entirety pursuant to Rules 10 and 12(b)(1) because Plaintiffs fail to identify themselves and fail
`to allege that they suffered any actual or threatened injury at the hands of either GitHub or
`Microsoft sufficient to give rise to a concrete controversy to be adjudicated by this Court.
`Second, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (and Rule 9
`with respect to Count IV for Fraud) because each and every one of the numerous claims for relief
`interposed against GitHub and Microsoft are either (a) legally foreclosed, (b) deficient because
`factual allegations required to support necessary elements are missing or implausible, or (c) both.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ISSUES
`Since the advent of open source software, developers have been free—indeed,
`encouraged—to use, study, change, and share source code for the broader good. It’s an
`extraordinary idea, one that has fostered an immense body of public knowledge, ever-evolving
`and ever-available for the next generation of developers to build, collaborate, and progress. The
`open source model is essential to collaborative and communal software development. GitHub
`was founded on the basis of these ideals, and when Microsoft invested billions to acquire GitHub
`in 2018, it cemented its commitment to them. The transformative technology at issue in this case,
`Copilot, reflects GitHub and Microsoft’s ongoing dedication and commitment to this profound
`human project. Copilot is a coding assistant tool that crystallizes the knowledge gained from
`billions of lines of public code, harnessing the collective power of open source software and
`putting it at every developer’s fingertips.
`Two anonymous detractors bring this lawsuit, claiming “software piracy on an
`unprecedented scale,” and seeking penalties in excess of $9 billion. Despite that rhetoric, they do
`not advance a copyright infringement claim at all—doubtless an attempt to evade the limitations
`on the scope of software copyright and the progress-protective doctrine of fair use. Copilot
`withdraws nothing from the body of open source code available to the public. Rather, Copilot
`helps developers write code by generating suggestions based on what it has learned from the
`entire body of knowledge gleaned from public code. In so doing, Copilot advances the very
`values of learning, understanding, and collaboration that animate the open source ethic. With
`their demand for an injunction and a multi-billion dollar windfall in connection with software that
`they willingly share as open source, it is Plaintiffs who seek to undermine those open source
`principles and to stop significant advancements in collaboration and progress.
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails on two intrinsic defects: lack of injury and lack of an otherwise
`viable claim. Plaintiffs do not allege that this extraordinary new tool has harmed them in any
`way. They do not explain how teaching Copilot about their code has taken anything from them.
`They do not allege that Copilot has done anything improper with their code, nor that GitHub or
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`A.
`
`Microsoft did anything improper with their personal information. They seem to say that Copilot
`could theoretically suggest a snippet of code that matches something they have published, and do
`so without giving them proper attribution. How that series of hypothetical events could harm
`them is also unexplained. There is no case or controversy here—only an artificial lawsuit brought
`by anonymous Plaintiffs built on a remote possibility that they will fail to be associated with an
`AI-generated code snippet that could in theory be connected to copyrightable aspects of their
`source code. The Complaint’s failure to make out a case for actual injury to named people
`requires dismissal under Rules 10 and 12(b)(1). Part I, infra.
`Additionally, Plaintiffs do not state a claim. Their Complaint cycles through twelve
`purported counts, some of which embrace multiple theories, in search of a hook for their abstract
`grievance against Copilot. Despite their attempt to make a federal case out of it, none of these
`counts plausibly establishes that training or using Copilot violates any legal right. Part II, infra.
`ALLEGATIONS OF THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT
`OpenAI Develops A Generative AI Tool Called Codex.
`OpenAI is a nonprofit organization that develops machine learning models, also referred
`to as “Artificial Intelligence.” Compl. ¶¶ 2, 126, 128. Such models are typically trained through
`exposure to a corpus of material called “training data.” Compl. ¶ 79. The patterns discerned
`from the set of training data become part of the model, which can then generate answers based
`upon those patterns in response to user prompts. Compl. ¶ 81; see Compl. ¶ 52.
`The model at issue in this case is called Codex. Codex is a generative AI model trained
`on publicly available computer source code. Compl. ¶¶ 52, 135. The model embodies “inferred
`… statistical patterns governing the structure of code,” Compl. ¶ 52, which it has discerned from
`the training data based on “a complex probabilistic process.” Compl. ¶ 79. It is thus capable, in
`response to a prompt, of “predic[ting] … the most likely [coding] solution.” Compl. ¶ 79.
`“[E]ssentially [it] returns the solution it has found in the most [coding] projects when those
`projects are somehow weighted to adjust for whatever variables [the model] ha[s] identified as
`relevant.” Compl. ¶ 79.
`Generative AI models are capable of “simulat[ing] human reasoning or inference,”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`engaging in the same sort of pattern recognition, synthesis, and prediction we do. Compl. ¶ 2. AI
`models like Codex also enable statistical analysis and prediction vastly more powerful, efficient,
`and sensitive than what the human brain can accomplish. Compl. ¶ 81. At the same time, Codex
`“does not understand the meaning of code,” Compl. ¶ 54, nor its “semantics and context the way
`humans do,” Compl. ¶ 81. Codex thus offers both the ingenious and the mundane, a powerful
`tool of invention for humans who supply the insight to direct its range of performance.
`B.
`GitHub Offers Copilot, A Code Completion Tool Built On Codex.
`GitHub Copilot is a programming assistant. Compl. at 8 n.4, ¶¶ 82-83. It “uses the
`OpenAI Codex to suggest code and entire functions in real-time” to software developers. Compl.
`¶ 47. To use Copilot, a GitHub user installs it “as an extension to various code editors, including
`Microsoft’s Visual Studio and VS Code.” Compl. ¶ 67. “As the user types [code] into the
`editor,” Copilot treats the user’s input as a prompt, generating suggestions for code that may be
`appropriate for the developer’s purposes. Compl. ¶ 67. Copilot is a subscription tool available to
`GitHub users for $10 per month or $100 per year. Compl. ¶ 8.
`The version of Codex that powers Copilot was trained on billions of lines of code that
`GitHub users stored in public GitHub repositories. See Compl. ¶ 143. When GitHub users put
`their code on GitHub, they choose whether to make the code repositories private or public.
`Compl. ¶ 119. Users who set their repositories “to be viewed publicly … grant each User of
`GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the
`GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub’s
`functionality.” Compl. Ex. 1 at 28 (GitHub Terms of Service (“TOS”) at 7). Every user agrees to
`GitHub’s TOS, which include a “License Grant” to GitHub to “store, archive, parse, and display
`… and make incidental copies” as well as “parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it”
`and “share” the content in public repositories with other users. Compl. Ex. 1 at 27-28 (GitHub
`TOS at 6-7). And users can also select from a range of preset open source licenses to apply to the
`code published in their various GitHub repositories, apply their own individual licenses, or select
`none at all. Compl. ¶ 34 n.4 & Appx. A.
`Any GitHub user thus appreciates that code placed in a public repository is genuinely
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`GITHUB AND MICROSOFT’S MTD
`NO. 4:22-CV-6823-JST
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-06823-JST Document 50 Filed 01/26/23 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`
`public. Anyone is free to examine, learn from, and understand that code, as well as repurpose it
`in various ways. And, consistent with this open source ethic, neither GitHub’s TOS nor any of
`the common open source licenses prohibit either humans or computers from reading and learning
`from publicly available code. See Compl. ¶ 34 n.4 & Appx. A.
`
`Plaintiffs Sue Based On An Attribution Theory.
`Plaintiffs are two anonymous GitHub users. Compl. ¶¶ 19-20. They both claim to have
`(at an unspecified time) “published Licensed Materials they owned a copyright interest in to at
`least one GitHub repository under one of the Suggested licenses.” Compl. ¶¶ 19-20. But they do
`not allege, either expressly or on information and belief, that their Licensed Materials were used
`to train Codex or Copilot. The most charitable reading of the Complaint is that because their
`Licensed Materials were in public repositories, and since public repositories were used to train
`Codex and Copilot, Compl. ¶ 82, they believe their Licensed Materials were used to do so. The
`Complaint also is not clear on whether or to what extent the training of Copilot forms the basis of
`the Plaintiffs’ claims for relief.
`The crux of the Complaint, instead, is Copilot’s suggestions, which Plaintiffs term
`“Output.” Plaintiffs allege that these suggestions may sometimes match snippets of code used to
`train Copilot, but without providing information like authorship or licensing status. According to
`Plaintiffs, Copilot’s “Output is often a near-identical reproduction of code from the training data,”
`Compl. ¶ 46, and Copilot “has not been trained to provide Attribution.” Compl. ¶ 56. On this
`basis, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants stripped Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s attribution, copyright
`no