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:
The copying of a software interface (API) can constitute a fair use under copyright law when the copying is limited to what is necessary to allow skilled users to apply their knowledge to a new and transformative program.
Facts:
- Sun Microsystems, later acquired by Oracle America, Inc., owned the copyright in the Java SE computer platform, which used the popular Java programming language and included an Application Programming Interface (API).
- The Java SE API provided a library of pre-written code for common computing tasks, allowing programmers to call upon them using a system of 'declaring code' that specified the name and organization of these tasks.
- Millions of programmers were familiar with the Java language and the Java SE API's structure.
- In 2005, Google acquired Android, Inc. to build a new software platform for mobile devices.
- To attract the large community of Java-familiar programmers, Google sought to make its new platform compatible with the Java API.
- Google and Sun negotiated a potential licensing deal for the Java platform, but the negotiations broke down without an agreement.
- Google proceeded to build the Android platform, writing its own 'implementing code' (the code that performs the tasks) but copying approximately 11,500 lines of the 'declaring code' from 37 packages of the Java SE API.
- This copying replicated the API's structure, sequence, and organization, allowing programmers to use the method calls they already knew to work on the Android platform.
Procedural Posture:
- Oracle America, Inc. sued Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for copyright infringement.
- Following a trial, the jury deadlocked on Google's fair use defense, and the district court judge ruled that the API's declaring code was not copyrightable.
- Oracle, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed, holding that the code was copyrightable and remanded for a new trial on fair use.
- At the second trial, the jury found in favor of Google, the defendant, determining that its copying constituted a fair use.
- Oracle again appealed to the Federal Circuit. 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.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari at the petition of Google to review the Federal Circuit's decision.
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 different computing environment (smartphones) constitute a fair use under the Copyright Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Breyer, J.
Yes, Google's copying of the Sun Java API constitutes a fair use 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 favors Google. First, the purpose and character of the use was transformative; Google used the API not merely to replicate its function but to create a new mobile platform that expanded the usefulness of smartphones, allowing programmers to use their skills in a new context. Second, the nature of the copyrighted work favors fair use because the declaring code is a functional user interface, inextricably bound with uncopyrightable ideas and whose value derives significantly from the investment of programmers who learn it, placing it far from the core of copyright. Third, regarding the amount and substantiality, Google copied only 0.4% of the total Java API code, taking no more than was necessary for its legitimate and transformative purpose of enabling interoperability. Finally, the effect on the market favored fair use, as the jury could have found Android did not substitute for Java SE (which was primarily for desktops/laptops) and that Sun was unlikely to succeed in the smartphone market regardless. Enforcing Oracle's copyright would risk public harm by locking in a functional system and stifling the creativity copyright is meant to promote.
Dissenting - Thomas, J.
No, Google's copying does not constitute a fair use. The majority errs by skipping the threshold question of copyrightability and, in doing so, distorts the fair use analysis. The declaring code is clearly copyrightable under the Copyright Act's express protection for computer programs. Analyzing the fair use factors, Google's use was overwhelmingly commercial and not transformative; it used the code for the exact same purpose as Oracle—to attract programmers—but in a competing product. Google copied the 'heart' of Oracle's work, which decimated Oracle's potential licensing market for mobile platforms, causing 'overwhelming' financial harm. The majority's holding creates a new, unsupported distinction between declaring and implementing code and allows a company to profit from verbatim copying simply because it could not agree on licensing terms, eviscerating copyright protection for computer code.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the fair use doctrine to functional software code, particularly APIs. It establishes that a use can be 'transformative' even with verbatim copying if the purpose is to create a new platform in a different context and unlock the creativity of third-party developers. The ruling provides greater legal certainty for developers who reimplement APIs to ensure interoperability or to allow programmers to leverage existing skills, thereby limiting copyright's potential to create anticompetitive 'lock-in' effects for dominant software platforms. The case reinforces that fair use is a flexible, context-sensitive doctrine designed to balance the incentives for creators with the public interest in innovation and progress.
