Google’s Copying of Oracle Code Is Fair Use, Supreme Court Rules

Google copying Oracle’s Java code for Android was fair use, the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 Monday, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting (see 2010290055). Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t participate.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer, the majority said Google copied code “needed to allow programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program.” Oracle’s predecessor Sun Microsystems invented the Java programming language.

Oracle’s “declaring code was central to its business model,” Thomas wrote in the dissenting opinion with Alito. After Google failed to agree on licensing terms to use the code in Android, it copied about 12,000 lines from the library, he wrote. “As a result, it erased 97.5% of the value of Oracle’s partnership with Amazon, made tens of billions of dollars, and established its position as the owner of the largest mobile operating system in the world.”

By copying parts of the code, Google created a new product that offers “programmers a highly creative and innovative tool for a smartphone environment,” the majority wrote. The use of the code “was consistent with that creative ‘progress’ that is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself.”

The high court’s decision raises barriers to entry and lowers companies’ ability to compete, said Oracle Executive Vice President Dorian Daley in a statement: Google “stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can. This behavior is exactly why regulatory authorities around the world and in the United States are examining Google’s business practices."

The court’s ruling is a victory for consumers, interoperability and computer science, said Google Senior Vice President-Global Affairs Kent Walker. It gives “legal certainty to the next generation of developers whose new products and services will benefit consumers.”

Microsoft, Mozilla, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, R Street Institute and the Niskanen Center sided with Google in the case (see 2001130050). DOJ, MPA, the Copyright Alliance, News Media Alliance, Association of American Publishers, Internet Accountability Project and American Conservative Union Foundation sided with Oracle.

The ruling is a “win for interoperability, copyright principles and the future of innovation,” said CCIA President Matt Schruers. “The high court’s decision that fair use extends to the functional principles of computer code means companies can offer competing, interoperable products.” The decision is great news for consumers and advocates who want more tech sector competition, said PK Legal Director John Bergmayer. But he said Congress or the court needs to consider whether copyright should cover software application programming interfaces, which the court didn’t address: “A decision that APIs should not be subject to copyright at all would benefit competition and interoperability in many ways.”

The decision is a “huge” win for developers, said Center for Democracy and Technology Open Internet Counsel Stan Adams: It “allows reuse of the functional elements of APIs, like the way you can use the same commands for cut/copy/paste across different software applications, or the way universal remotes reuse the commands necessary to communicate with your television.” Copyright’s purpose is to “promote, not hinder creativity, and the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of fair use in finding that balance,” said Re:Create Executive Director Joshua Lamel.