The Google lawsuit involved code used in the Android operating system and has been a landmark copyright dispute
Google has succeeded in its long-running lawsuit against Oracle over software used in the Android mobile platform, with a 6-2 decision involving around 12,000 lines of code.
The code was taken from the Java application programming interface developed by Sun Microsystems, which Oracle acquired in 2010.
Oracle had claimed as much as $9 billion for the copied code while Google claimed that its use of the code was covered under the doctrine of fair use and therefore not subject to copyright liability, which made the Google lawsuit a major case in American copyright law. Android is the most popular mobile operating system in the world.
Oracle had sued Google over the use of its code and won its case twice before the specialized U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that the code in question was copyrightable and that Google’s use of it not protected by the fair use doctrine.
The Supreme Court had reversed the appeals court’s decision, though it did not definitively resolve whether the code in question was copyrightable.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, agreed that Google’s use of the code was protected under fair use, noting that Google took “only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program.”
“To the extent that Google used parts of the Sun Java API to create a new platform that could be readily used by programmers, its use was consistent with that creative ‘progress’ that is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself,” Breyer added.
Justice Breyer said that the top court assumed “for argument’s sake” that the code was copyrightable in the first place, but declined to issue a ruling on that question, saying that the holding on fair use was enough to decide the case.
“Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute,” Breyer wrote.
Breyer was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
In his dissent, joined by Alito, Thomas chided the majority for skipping over the question of copyrightability.
“The Court wrongly sidesteps the principal question that we were asked to answer: Is declaring code protected by copyright? I would hold that it is,” Thomas wrote.
“The majority purports to save for another day the question whether declaring code is copyrightable. The only apparent reason for doing so is because the majority cannot square its fundamentally flawed fair-use analysis with a finding that declaring code is copyrightable,” Thomas added.
The case, one of the most significant of the term, featured a high-profile battle over competing visions of the future of software development.
“The long settled practice of reusing software interfaces is critical to modern software development,” Google’s attorney, the veteran Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein, told the justices during arguments.
The case attracted attention in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case, Microsoft argued that the federal appeals court decision “threatens modern paradigms of software development.”
The case was originally scheduled to be heard last term before it was delayed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Kent Walker, Google’s senior vice president for global affairs, said in a post on Twitter after the decision was released that “Today’s Supreme Court decision in Google v. Oracle is a big win for innovation, interoperability & computing.”
“Thanks to the country’s leading innovators, software engineers & copyright scholars for their support,” Walker said.
- 17 New Partners At Skadden
- 5 ‘Lawyer Burnout’ Symptoms and How To Avoid Them For The Good Of Your Health
- Firm’s ‘Best on the Ground’ Policy Sees New Partners
- Law Firm Mergers Set To Rise After The 2020 Pandemic Drop
- Law Firm Technology: How Digitally Effective Are UK Law Firms?
- $1.4 Million Partner Pay Is Not Cutting The Mustard For Many Partners At Minters