| # GraphLang — US Legal Protection Framework |
|
|
| > **Prepared for**: Josué Argaña Silguero, July 28, 2026 |
| > **Purpose**: Document legal precedents and statutes that protect GraphLang IP |
| > **For**: Review by US-licensed IP attorney |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## Executive Summary |
|
|
| GraphLang is protected by 4 layers of US law: |
|
|
| | Layer | Statute/Case | Protects | Risk | |
| |---|---|---|---| |
| | Copyright | 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. | Source code, SPEC, paper | Must register with US Copyright Office | |
| | Trade Secret | DTSA 18 U.S.C. § 1836 | Normalizer, dataset | Must document "reasonable measures" | |
| | Contract | BSL 1.1 + Commercial License | Production use, AI training | Enforceable as contract, not preempted | |
| | Prior Art | 35 U.S.C. § 102 | Blocks others from patenting 12 IR kinds | Does not generate revenue | |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 1. Trade Secret — DTSA (Your Strongest Shield) |
|
|
| ### Statute |
| **Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016** (18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq.) |
| - Federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation |
| - Allows ex parte seizure of property to prevent dissemination |
| - Protects source code, algorithms, datasets explicitly |
| - Damages: actual loss + unjust enrichment, OR reasonable royalty |
| - **Willful misappropriation**: up to 2× damages + attorney fees |
|
|
| ### Key Cases |
|
|
| **Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.** (W.D. Wis. 2016) |
| - **$940 million jury verdict** for trade secret theft of healthcare software |
| - TCS consultants downloaded 6,000+ documents containing Epic's proprietary code |
| - Court held: software architecture, implementation details, and internal documentation are protectable trade secrets |
| - **Lesson for GraphLang**: Your complete_normalizer.py and benchmark_dataset.json qualify. Document your "reasonable measures" (encryption, private repo, NDA policy). |
|
|
| **Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.** (N.D. Cal. 2018) |
| - Trade secret theft of self-driving car technology |
| - **$245 million settlement** |
| - Engineer downloaded 14,000 files before leaving for Uber |
| - Court held: downloading proprietary files + using them at competitor = misappropriation |
| - **Lesson for GraphLang**: If anyone takes your normalizer or dataset and uses it at a competitor, DTSA applies. |
|
|
| **United States v. Nosal** (9th Cir. 2016) |
| - Former employee used colleague's password to access proprietary database |
| - **Trade secret conviction upheld**: "authorized access" does not mean "authorized for any purpose" |
| - **Lesson for GraphLang**: If a licensee uses the normalizer for AI training (violating license terms), that exceeds their authorization = potential criminal liability under CFAA. |
|
|
| ### What You Need to Prove |
| 1. The information IS a secret (not public) |
| 2. You took REASONABLE MEASURES to protect it |
| 3. It has ECONOMIC VALUE because it's secret |
| 4. The defendant MISAPPROPRIATED it (acquired through improper means) |
|
|
| **Your evidence**: complete_normalizer.py private, benchmark_dataset.json encrypted, benchmarks removed from public repo, NDA requirement in ENTERPRISE.md. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 2. Copyright — Software Structure & APIs |
|
|
| ### Statute |
| **Copyright Act of 1976** (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) |
| - Protects original works of authorship fixed in tangible medium |
| - Software source code IS copyrightable |
| - Registration with US Copyright Office = prerequisite to sue + statutory damages |
|
|
| ### Key Cases |
|
|
| **Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.** (Supreme Court 2021, 593 U.S. 1) |
| - Google copied 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code |
| - Supreme Court held: Google's use was **fair use** (functional, minimal, transformative) |
| - BUT: Court assumed WITHOUT DECIDING that APIs are copyrightable |
| - **Lesson for GraphLang**: Your SPEC is similar to an API specification. Publishing it is prior art, but it could also be copyrighted. The key protection is that your IMPLEMENTATION (normalizer) is not copied — only the idea is public. Ideas are not copyrightable; expressions are. |
|
|
| **Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.** (Fed. Cir. 2014, 750 F.3d 1339) |
| - Federal Circuit REVERSED district court, held Java API declaring code IS copyrightable |
| - Structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of 37 Java packages protected |
| - **Lesson for GraphLang**: Your 12 IR kinds with specific mappings (the SSO of your normalizer) could be copyrightable expression, not just idea. Register it. |
|
|
| **Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc.** (3d Cir. 1986, 797 F.2d 1222) |
| - Landmark case: software's "structure, sequence, and organization" is copyrightable |
| - Defendant wrote a competing program in a DIFFERENT language but copied the structure |
| - **Lesson for GraphLang**: Even if someone rewrites complete_normalizer.py in Rust or Go, if they copy the structure (which CST types map to which IR kinds), that's infringement. |
| |
| ### Registration |
| - Register `core.py`, `complete_normalizer.py`, `SPEC.md`, and `paper/paper.md` with US Copyright Office (copyright.gov) |
| - Costs: $65 per application (single author) |
| - Deadline: within 3 months of publication for statutory damages ($750-$30,000 per work, up to $150,000 for willful) |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 3. Contract — BSL 1.1 Enforcement |
|
|
| ### Legal Basis |
| BSL 1.1 is a **contractual license**, not just a copyright license. Key elements: |
| - **Offer**: "You may use the software under these terms" |
| - **Acceptance**: By using the software, you accept the terms |
| - **Consideration**: The licensor provides access; the licensee agrees to restrictions |
| - **Field-of-use restriction**: "non-commercial purposes only" |
|
|
| ### Key Cases |
|
|
| **Jacobsen v. Katzer** (Fed. Cir. 2008, 535 F.3d 1373) |
| - Enforced Artistic License (open source) as a contract |
| - Violating open source license = copyright infringement |
| - **Lesson for GraphLang**: Using BSL-licensed code in production without commercial license = copyright infringement + breach of contract. |
|
|
| **MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.** (9th Cir. 2010, 629 F.3d 928) |
| - Enforced software license restrictions as contractual conditions |
| - Using software beyond license scope = copyright infringement |
| - **Lesson for GraphLang**: If a company uses public core.py beyond BSL scope, that's actionable. |
|
|
| ### BSL-Specific |
| - **No BSL enforcement case yet at appellate level** — this is NEW legal territory |
| - BSL is modeled on MariaDB's BSL, which HashiCorp, CockroachDB, and Sentry adopted |
| - HashiCorp moved BSL → BUSL after community pushback, but no litigation yet |
| - **Risk**: BSL enforceability is untested. But contract law + copyright law provide backup. |
| - **Mitigation**: Your Commercial License (separate signed agreement) is stronger than BSL alone. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 4. Defensive Publication — Prior Art Against Patents |
|
|
| ### Statute |
| **35 U.S.C. § 102** — Conditions for patentability; novelty |
| - (a)(1): A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was "described in a printed publication" before the effective filing date |
| - Your GitHub repo with timestamp = "printed publication" under AIA (America Invents Act) |
|
|
| ### Official Defensive Publication |
| - **USPTO**: File a "document of defensive publication" under 37 C.F.R. § 1.91 |
| - No fee required if filed within 2 months |
| - Becomes searchable in USPTO database, examiners MUST consider it |
| - **Statutory Invention Registration** (SIR): 35 U.S.C. § 157 (alternative, but discontinued) |
|
|
| ### Key Cases |
|
|
| **In re Hall** (Fed. Cir. 1986, 781 F.2d 897) |
| - Doctoral thesis in university library = "printed publication" = invalidates patent |
| - **Lesson**: Your GitHub repo is at least as accessible as a library thesis. |
|
|
| **In re Wyer** (CCPA 1981, 655 F.2d 221) |
| - Microfilm in Australian Patent Office = accessible to the public = prior art |
| - **Lesson**: Any online publication indexed by Google = prior art. Your README, SPEC, and paper all qualify. |
|
|
| ### Action Items |
| 1. File ArXiv paper (free, immediate timestamp) |
| 2. File SPEC.md as USPTO defensive publication (pro se possible, low cost) |
| 3. Archive repo on Software Heritage (softwareheritage.org) for immutable timestamp |
| 4. Register copyright on SPEC.md (strengthens prior art claim) |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 5. Specific Protections for AI Training Use |
|
|
| ### Current Legal Landscape (Unsettled) |
| - No court has ruled on whether a license can prohibit AI training specifically |
| - Copyright Office position: using copyrighted works for AI training may be fair use (policy under review, 2025) |
| - BUT: Contract law can be STRICTER than copyright fair use |
|
|
| ### Strategy for GraphLang |
| 1. **BSL explicitly prohibits AI training** (contractual use restriction) |
| 2. **Separate AI Training License** ($500K+): If they want to train on your outputs |
| 3. **Trade secret layer**: Even if BSL fails, normalizer is still a trade secret |
| 4. **Contract > Copyright**: A signed commercial license trumps "fair use" arguments |
|
|
| ### Key Case |
| **ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg** (7th Cir. 1996, 86 F.3d 1447) |
| - Shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable contracts |
| - Use restrictions beyond copyright are valid under contract law |
| - **Lesson for GraphLang**: Your BSL + Commercial License can restrict AI training even if copyright alone couldn't. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 6. Damages & Remedies Summary |
|
|
| | Violation | Statute | Max Damages | Precedent | |
| |---|---|---|---| |
| | Trade secret theft | DTSA 18 U.S.C. § 1836 | Actual + unjust enrichment, OR reasonable royalty. Willful: 2× + fees | Epic v. TCS: $940M | |
| | Copyright infringement | 17 U.S.C. § 504 | Statutory: $750-$30K per work ($150K willful) | Oracle v. Google (settled) | |
| | Breach of contract (BSL) | State contract law | Actual damages + specific performance | MDY v. Blizzard | |
| | Patent (if someone patents your idea) | 35 U.S.C. § 102 | Invalidate their patent with your prior art | In re Hall | |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 7. Immediate Action Items (This Week) |
|
|
| 1. **File ArXiv paper** — free, instant timestamp (arxiv.org/submit) |
| 2. **Register copyright** on core.py + SPEC.md (copyright.gov, $65) |
| 3. **Archive on Software Heritage** (softwareheritage.org/save) |
| 4. **Print and notarize**: SPEC.md + IP.md + first page of LICENSE (physical timestamp) |
| 5. **Update GitHub repo description**: "BSL 1.1 — Protected by DTSA and Copyright. Commercial license required." |
| 6. **Set up Google Alert** for "GraphLang" + "12 IR kinds" + "semantic compression" |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## Notes for Your Attorney |
|
|
| - This document is a strategic overview, NOT legal advice |
| - BSL enforcement is untested at appellate level — combine with contract + trade secret |
| - Register copyright EARLY to qualify for statutory damages |
| - Document all "reasonable measures" for trade secret protection (emails, NDA templates, access logs) |
| - Consider incorporating as LLC in Delaware before signing any commercial license |
|
|
