Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.
Term: 2020-2021
(Originally 2019-2020)
Important Dates
Argument: October 7, 2020
(Postponed from March 24, 2020)
Decided: April 5, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-2
Majority
Stephen Breyer • Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito

Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 7, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

Oral argument was initially scheduled for March 24, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. However, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 16 that it was postponing the 11 oral arguments originally scheduled during its March sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."[1]

  • Click here for more information about the court's response to the coronavirus pandemic.
  • Click here for more information about political responses to the pandemic.

In a 6-2 opinion, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Google's use of the Java SE Application Programming Interface's (API) lines of code in order to allow programmers to work in a transformative program constituted a fair use of that material under copyright law. Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Google LLC entered into negotiations with Sun Microsystems Inc. for a licensing agreement to use Sun's Java programming platform to develop software for Google's Android mobile device operating system. The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Google developed its operating system using portions of Java program code. Oracle America Inc. purchased Sun and came into ownership of its Java source code, libraries, and application programming interfaces. Oracle filed suit against Google for copyright and patent infringement. The case was brought to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California twice and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit twice. In the first trial and appeal, the district court jury found that Google infringed on Oracle's copyrights and was deadlocked on the question of fair use. After the verdict, the district court dismissed Oracle's claim. The appeals court reversed the district court's determination and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury's verdict. In the second trial and appeal, the district court denied Oracle's motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial in a single order and entered final judgment in favor of Google. The appeals court reversed the district court's decisions, remanded the case back to the district court for a trial on damages, and dismissed Google's cross-appeal filing asserting fair use.
  • The questions presented:
    "(1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and
    (2) whether, as the jury found, petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use."[3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings in a 6-2 opinion


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[4] You can review the lower court's opinion here.[5]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 5, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.
    • October 7, 2020:Oral argument was heard.
    • March 16, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court postponed its March sitting. Oral arguments in Google v. Oracle America were initially scheduled for March 24, 2020.
    • November 15, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • January 24, 2019:Google LLC filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • March 27, 2018: The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California's decisions denying Oracle America Inc.'s motions for judgment as a matter of law, remanded the case, and dismissed Google LLC's cross-appeal.

    Background

    Technology

    In 2005, Google LLC acquired Android Inc. in order to develop a software platform for mobile devices. In the same year, Google sought to incorporate computer programming platform Java's Standard Edition programming libraries into the Android operating system, and entered into negotiations with Java developer Sun Microsystems Inc. regarding a licensing agreement for the software libraries, including the Java Application Programming Interface (API).[5][6]

    Sun developed the Java platform using its Java programming language source code for freely available, interoperable use with different types of computer hardware; however, programmers seeking to use the APIs in a competing platform or to embed the programs in an electronic device were charged a licensing fee. Sun then created and released an open source version of Java, the Open Java Development Kit (OpenJDK), to programmers for free so long as any improvements on OpenJDK program packages were made freely available to all Java users.[5][6]

    In its negotiation with Sun, Google wanted third parties to be able to use Java's APIs for free without limits on code modifications. Sun stated that this version of the software would prevent the software from being compatible with other versions. The two parties were unable to reach an agreement. Following the unsuccessful negotiations, Google copied verbatim portions of copyrighted code from 37 Java API packages and the packages' structure, sequence, and organization, and wrote its own, customized implementing code for use with mobile devices.[5][6]

    In 2010, Oracle America Inc. purchased Sun Microsystems Inc. and acquired ownership of Java's libraries and APIs.[5][6]

    Definition of fair use

    The following quotation is sourced from the United States Code section on fair use:[7]

    “ Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-


    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[8]

    		”


    First trial and appeal

    At the first trial before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the jury found that Google infringed on Oracle's copyrights in the Java Standard Edition platform and was deadlocked on the question of whether or not Google's copying was a fair use. Following the verdict, the district court found that API packages were not copyrightable as a matter of law and dismissed Oracle's claim.[5]

    Oracle appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed the district court's determination, finding that the Java API packages' declaring code and structure, sequence, and organization were entitled to copyright protection. The court remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to reinstate the jury's verdict of copyright infringement and for further proceedings on Google's fair use claim. Google then filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari on the copyright determination, which the court denied in 2015.[5]

    Second trial and appeal

    At the second trial before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Google reasserted its claim of fair use. Following the jury verdict, the district court denied Oracle's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and entered judgment in favor of Google.[9] Oracle filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial. The district court denied both motions. No damages verdict was rendered.[5]

    Oracle appealed the district court's final judgment and its decisions denying Oracle's motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Google cross-appealed to reassert its claim that the declarations, structure, sequence, and organization of the code are not protected by copyright law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's decisions regarding Oracle's motions for judgment as a matter of law, remanded the case back to the district court for a trial on damages, and dismissed Google's cross-appeal.[5]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    • (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and
      (2) whether, as the jury found, petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.


    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]



    Transcript

    Outcome

    On April 5, 2021, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings in a 6-2 opinion, holding that Google's use of the Java SE Application Programming Interface's (API) lines of code in order to allow programmers to work in a transformative program constituted a fair use of that material under copyright law. Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.[2]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote:[2]

    “ Oracle America, Inc., is the current owner of a copyright in Java SE, a computer program that uses the popular Java computer programming language. Google, without permission, has copied a portion of that program, a portion that enables a programmer to call up prewritten software that, together with the computer's hardware, will carry out a large number of specific tasks. The lower courts have considered (1) whether Java SE's owner could copyright the portion that Google copied, and (2) if so, whether Google's copying nonetheless constituted a "fair use" of that material, thereby freeing Google from copyright liability. The Federal Circuit held in Oracle’s favor (i.e., that the portion is copyrightable and Google's copying did not constitute a "fair use"). In reviewing that decision, we assume, for argument's sake, that the material was copyrightable. But we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use. Hence, Google’s copying did not violate the copyright law.


    ... The fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technological world. See Lotus Development Corp., 49 F. 3d, at 820 (Boudin, J., concurring). In doing so here, we have not changed the nature of those concepts. We do not overturn or modify our earlier cases involving fair use–cases, for example, that involve "knockoff" products, journalistic writings, and parodies. Rather, we here recognize that application of a copyright doctrine such as fair use has long proved a cooperative effort of Legislatures and courts, and that Congress, in our view, intended that it so continue. As such, we have looked to the principles set forth in the fair use statute, §107, and set forth in our earlier cases, and applied them to this different kind of copyrighted work.

    We reach the conclusion that in this case, 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. The Federal Circuit’s contrary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Stephen Breyer

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito.[2]

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[2]

    “ Oracle spent years developing a programming library that successfully attracted software developers, thus enhancing the value of Oracle's products. 1. Google sought a license to use the library in Android, the operating system it was developing for mobile phones. But when the companies could not agree on terms, Google simply copied verbatim 11,500 lines of code from the library. 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. Despite this, the majority holds that this copying was fair use.


    The Court reaches this unlikely result in large part because it bypasses the antecedent question clearly before us: Is the software code at issue here protected by the Copyright Act? The majority purports to assume, without deciding, that the code is protected. But its fair-use analysis is wholly inconsistent with the substantial protection Congress gave to computer code. By skipping over the copyrightability question, the majority disregards half the relevant statutory text and distorts its fair-use analysis. Properly considering that statutory text, Oracle’s code at issue here is copyrightable, and Google's use of that copyrighted code was anything but fair.

    ... 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. The majority has used fair use to eviscerate Congress’ considered policy judgment. I respectfully dissent.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[11]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Press release from March 16, 2020," accessed March 16, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 U.S. Supreme Court, Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., decided April 5, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.: Questions presented," accessed November 15, 2019
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.," accessed November 15, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, "Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google LLC," March 27, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed November 15, 2019
    7. ↑ Casetext.com, "17 U.S.C. § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use," accessed December 17, 2019
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling," accessed November 15, 2019
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed October 12, 2020
    11. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America_Inc.&oldid=9117367"