# The billion dolar Code. A Netflix series about code infringement. The case of Terreavision and Google Earth. October 20th, 2024 By Pepe Hernandez In 1993, in Berlin, an artist (Pavel Mayer or Yuri in the series) and a hacker (Joachim Schlüter, portrayed as Carsten in the series) came together to create software ahead of its time: TERRAVISION. This project allowed users to navigate the globe and zoom in to get a physical view of a location. The interface for selecting and navigating to the desired place was a sphere. To develop it, they partnered with one of the largest companies in Germany, Deutch Post, now Deutch Telecomm. The project brought together a group of hackers and designers who created an interface that preceded Google Earth by eight years. The ART+COM project came before Google's, which wasn’t publicly released until 2001. In 2014, ART+COM filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing it of infringing the 1995 TERRAVISION patent with its Google Earth software, published in 2001. In May 2016, a U.S. District Court jury ruled in favor of Google, arguing that there was prior publication before the patent registration in 1994, referring to a geographic visualization system called "SRI Terravision." SRI stands for Stanford Research Institute. The jury asserted that "Art+Com could not prove its patent infringement claim because the patent was anticipated by the public prior to the December 1995 priority right claim." In the story, the two German hackers visit Silicon Valley. Astutely, the Chief Engineer (Warren Stuart, a fictional character) at Silicon Graphics is impressed with what Pavel and Joachim have accomplished. The engineer invites Joachim (the hacker). Thanks to the mutual admiration and connection between Joachim and Warren, Warren confesses the full operation of their invention to him, something he would regret years later. In 2001, when the company is still working on its project in Germany, they discover that Google had overtaken them and that Warren had stolen their idea. This part of the series is fictional but highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property before sharing it publicly. One of the conclusions hinted at in the miniseries is that proving a software program has been plagiarized is always a challenge in courts around the world. There are many similarities in software features, companies are reluctant to show their complete code, and it’s difficult to find court experts with the expertise necessary to understand the code. In general, various reviews and opinions about the miniseries discuss how it’s almost impossible to win legally against a company as large and resourceful as Google, even if you are right. As a final note, Google’s intellectual property manager attempted to purchase the patent from ART+COM prior to the release of Google Earth. The negotiation was unsuccessful. ART+COM was left without the project, with an invalidated patent, and without the economic benefits of the patent. P.S. The key article was called Terravision, and ART+COM's project trademark was also Terravision. Why? Was there a relationship between ART-COM's Terravision and SRI's technical note? We will never know. Key intellectual property concepts identified in the series: There are two key elements of intellectual property: hardware and software. The hardware was represented by the interface used to navigate TERRAVISION. In the miniseries, the interface designer tests many alternatives before deciding on a globe to navigate the application. The software, the core of the system, consisted of an algorithm that allowed maps to load gradually instead of all at once, in packets of 128 kilobits (the size of the memory). There was also a new floating coordinate system, which is the basis of current geographic information systems (GIS). There is a third element of intellectual property: the maps themselves, which were obtained from various sources. The miniseries doesn’t delve into or criticize how these maps were obtained, but ART+COM had all the maps available at the time to make their project possible. Personal reflections on how intellectual property influences... Several key conclusions can be drawn from the provided summary regarding the context and implications of the case between ART+COM and Google related to Terravision: - **ART+COM was an innovative company ahead of its time.** The Terravision project, developed in the year they built the prototype presented at the Kyoto fair, demonstrated the functionality that Google Earth would display years later. Technological innovation can be ahead of its time. In this context, it is crucial to be aware of the inherent risks in protecting intellectual property in emerging industries, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in this case. - **Legal complexity of intellectual property in the software industry.** ART+COM was unable to adequately protect its patent due to the existence of prior art (the SRI visualization system publication), which highlights how early disclosure of an innovation can prevent companies from obtaining later legal protection, even if they were pioneers in their field. - **Proving software plagiarism in court is difficult.** The case reflects one of the significant barriers in software infringement lawsuits: demonstrating that a software program has been plagiarized is complicated due to the technical nature of software, the difficulty in accessing source code, and the lack of judicial experts specializing in understanding and comparing functionalities. - **The economic power of companies matters in litigation.** The case also exposes a critical point discussed in the miniseries: it’s difficult, if not impossible, to legally compete against tech giants like Google. Even if you are right, the access to massive legal and financial resources by large corporations can tilt the scales in court. - **Several key intellectual property elements related to software.** The hardware (user interface) and software (map-loading algorithms and coordinate systems), as well as maps obtained from various sources, formed the complete globe exploration system. Legally protecting each element separately and together is complex. - **An intellectual property manager was necessary.** There should have been someone proactively responsible for this task. Just as a financial manager was designated in the series, there should have been someone assigned to handle intellectual property. - **The judicial system is prone to bias.** The perception that one cannot defeat a company like Google, regardless of the merit of the case, reflects a broader critique of the judicial system in intellectual property cases, where size and financial resources play a determining role in outcomes. This presents a challenge for small entrepreneurs in emerging industries.