Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
593 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copying a software interface may constitute a fair use if the copying is limited to what is necessary to allow users to put their accrued skills to work in a new and transformative program. The fair use doctrine's application to computer code requires a context-based analysis of the four statutory factors.
Facts:
- Sun Microsystems, later acquired by Oracle America, Inc., developed the Java programming language and the Java SE platform, which included an extensive library of prewritten code accessible through an Application Programming Interface (API).
- Millions of software programmers invested significant time to learn and become proficient in using the Java language and this specific API structure to build applications, primarily for desktop and laptop computers.
- In 2005, Google acquired Android, Inc., with the goal of developing a new software platform for the emerging mobile device market.
- To attract the large community of Java programmers to its new platform, Google wanted to make Android compatible with the familiar Java API, allowing programmers to leverage their existing skills.
- Google and Sun Microsystems engaged in negotiations for a potential license for the Java platform to be used in Android, but the talks failed to produce an agreement.
- After negotiations broke down, Google proceeded to build its Android platform, independently writing millions of lines of new 'implementing code' but copying verbatim approximately 11,500 lines of 'declaring code' from 37 packages of the Java SE API.
- This copied declaring code provided the organizational structure and naming conventions that programmers already knew, enabling them to easily write new applications for the Android platform.
- The copied declaring code constituted a very small fraction of the total Java SE API, which contained 2.86 million lines of code in total.
Procedural Posture:
- Oracle America, Inc. sued Google LLC for copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal trial court).
- In the first phase of the trial, a jury found infringement but deadlocked on Google's fair use defense.
- The district court judge then ruled as a matter of law that the API's declaring code was not protected by copyright.
- Oracle appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (an intermediate appellate court), which reversed the trial court, holding that the API code was copyrightable.
- The Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for a new trial on the question of fair use.
- At the second trial, a new jury found that Google's actions constituted a 'fair use' of the copyrighted work.
- Oracle, the appellant, again appealed to the Federal Circuit, and Google was the appellee.
- The Federal Circuit reversed the jury's verdict, holding that Google's copying was not a fair use as a matter of law, and remanded for a trial on damages.
- Google, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Google's copying of approximately 11,500 lines of declaring code from Oracle's Java SE API to create the Android platform for a new computing environment constitute a permissible 'fair use' under the Copyright Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes, Google's copying of the Java SE API was a fair use of that material as a matter of law. Assuming for the sake of argument that the API is copyrightable, the Court's analysis of the four statutory fair use factors supports Google's use. First, the purpose and character of the use was transformative; Google did not merely copy the API for use in the same environment, but reimplemented it to create a new platform for a different computing environment (smartphones), enabling programmers to create new products. Second, the nature of the copyrighted work weighs in favor of fair use because the declaring code is functional, part of a user interface, and inextricably bound with uncopyrightable ideas and the skills invested by programmers, placing it far from the core of copyright protection. Third, the amount and substantiality of the portion used favors fair use because the 11,500 lines copied represented only 0.4% of the entire API, and the copying was tethered to the valid transformative purpose of enabling interoperability. Fourth, the effect on the potential market favors fair use because Google's Android platform was not a market substitute for Oracle's Java SE, and allowing Oracle to enforce its copyright would create a lock on programmers' accrued skills, harming the public by stifling creativity, which runs counter to copyright's basic objectives.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No, Google's use of Oracle's copyrighted code was not a fair use. The majority erred by assuming copyrightability instead of deciding it; Oracle's declaring code is copyrightable under the Copyright Act. The majority's fair use analysis is fundamentally flawed and distorts the doctrine. The most important factor, market effect, decisively favors Oracle because Google's copying decimated Oracle's potential market for licensing its platform for mobile devices. The purpose and character of the use also favor Oracle, as Google's use was overwhelmingly commercial and not transformative; it used the code for the exact same purpose as Oracle, merely in a different context, which is a derivative, not transformative, use. The amount and substantiality favor Oracle because Google copied the 'heart' of the work verbatim. By creating a distinction between declaring and implementing code that Congress rejected, the majority has used fair use to eviscerate copyright protection for computer programs.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the fair use doctrine to functional computer code, particularly software APIs. By emphasizing the transformative nature of reimplementing an interface for a new platform and the public benefit of programmer interoperability, the Court creates a strong defense against infringement claims for those building compatible systems. The ruling may reduce the ability of copyright holders to 'lock in' a community of developers who have invested in learning a particular API, thereby promoting competition and innovation. However, it also raises questions about the scope of copyright protection for valuable, functional software elements and may reduce the incentive for companies to invest in developing new, well-organized APIs.
