The Supreme Court favored Google in a 6-2 decision that allows the search engine giant to use Oracle’s code for the Android smartphone. (Image Credit: Kai Wenzel/Unsplash)
On April 5th, the Supreme Court ruled that Google’s use of Oracle’s API code to develop the Android operating system did not violate copyright law. This saves Google billions of dollars in potential damages. In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court favored Google in the case, which was overturned from an earlier decision.
In the ten-year-old lawsuit, Oracle alleged that Google plagiarized its software by using 11,500 lines of code from the Java programming API to build Android and collect billions of dollars in revenue. Oracle sought $9 billion in damages and accused Google of using the code without permission. Google said it did not plagiarize but instead used bits of Java’s code required to run a computer program. Both companies challenged whether Google made fair use of Oracle’s software code.
To determine whether this constitutes fair use, Justice Stephen Breyer turned to fair use statutory factors. First, he discussed the use of the copyrighted work. The Court recognized that Java APIs code is different from other computer code. It consists of features that can’t be copyrighted, such as computer tasks and their organization, along with the Java method calls. Then, Beyer discussed its usability and purpose. This is where he shed light on when its use is adaptive to the operational aspects of software, developing a new program rather than replacing the original. Google copied elements of Java API to build products for newer purposes and provide programmers with a creative and innovative tool to develop smartphones.
The Court discussed how an interface reimplementation progresses computer program development. This includes allowing programmers to continue utilizing their skills and programs to communicate with each other. Additionally, the jury heard that it’s common to reuse APIs. That led to the conclusion that Google’s replication of Oracle was transformative, resulting in the first factor favoring fair use.
Afterward, the Court contemplated the third fair use factor, which deals with the amount and sustainability of the elements utilized. The 11,500 lines of code used by Google were less than 1% of the entire Java SE software. Even then, the code allows programmers to use their Java API experience and knowledge to develop Android smartphone apps. Since the amount copied was restricted for transformative purposes, the sustainability factor ruled fair use.
Lastly, Breyer concluded that market effects, the fourth factor, favored Google for several reasons. Sun Microsystems didn’t possess viable smartphone development capabilities, whereas Android did when it entered the marketplace. Furthermore, Sun’s lost revenue came from investments made by programmers to learn and utilize Java. Breyer stated that Oracle copyrighting its code does more harm to the public by lock limiting new programs’ creativity. Oracle would hold the key to that.
The Court stated that “where Google reimplemented a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, Google’s copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use of that material as a matter of law.”
Several tech companies, such as Microsoft, support Google in this ruling. In its brief, Microsoft argued that if Oracle won the case, it would risk upsetting long-settled expectations that enabled tech companies to grow by allowing programs to incorporate.
Companies in the software development industry won’t be able to claim copyright over APIs. If they were able to enforce strict copyrights over APIs, many fear it would start a bunch of copyright lawsuits.
Previously, Google lost in 2014 and 2018 at the Federal Circuit. In 2016, jurors favored Google, permitting its use of Java code as fair use under copyright law. This ruling was overturned in 2018 when the Federal Circuit stated that there is “nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform.”
How do you all feel about this ruling?
Have a story tip? Message me at: http://twitter.com/Cabe_Atwell