Photo by Intepat ()
TianchuGao is anIPilogueWriter and a 1L JD Candidate atOsgoodeHall Law School.
The decade-long dispute between Google and Oracle over computer code’s copyrightability finally came to an end on April 5, 2021. It started out in 2010 when Oracle sued Google for copying the ofJava, a programming language developed and licensed by Sun Microsystemsandlateracquired by Oracle, inGoogle’sdevelopment oftheoperating system. The fight between the two tech giants, withbillions ofdollars at stake,attractedsignificantand.Manyacademics, businesses,and computer professionalsforGoogle before the case was heard at theU.S.Supreme CourtonOctober 7, 2020.Thebears great weight in shaping the development of the IT industry andU.S.copyright law. It is arguably, as Stanford law professor Mark Lemley coined it, “”
The casemeanderedthroughconstant reversals of judicial judgements.It is composed of two phases centering on two legal issues that were trialed separately—thecopyrightability of APIsandthe.In the first phase, the that Oracle’s APIs functioned somewhat like a “system or method of operation” which could be implemented in various ways and, on the facts of the case, Google’s use of them was permitted under theCopyright Act.Theand claimed that“the overallstructure of Oracle's API packages is creative, original, and‘resembles a taxonomy’.”It alsoordereda secondtrialto determinewhether Google’s use of JavaAPIwasacceptable under the fair usedoctrine. Inthe, the jury votedinfavourofnon-infringementon the ground thatGoogle’s usewasfair.Oracle appealed successfully. The that Google’s use of Java API is a non-transformative use, with transformativeness being a requirement for finding fair use, and that it has profited commercially from Android. As expected, Google was unhappy with the outcome and appealed again.
Finally, with the support ofs from the Solicitor General of the United States and numerous other professionals,the Supreme Courtmade a that is more in tune with the context of programming and the IT industry. The majority opinion held that, although API is copyrightable, Google’s use of Java API is within the bounds of fair use. It highlighted the distinction between declaring code and implementing code—the former proposes a hypothetical function that serves a particular objective, and the latter is the actual realization of that hypothesis. According to the Supreme Court, Java API is essentially a set of declaring code that resolves general task division and organization. It enables programmers to “ The very creativity that contributes to technological breakthroughs lies in implementation rather than merely declaring code. It is in Google’s interest to use Java APIs, rather than developing its own, because programmers have already invested time and effort to learn them. Google wanted to attract as many programmers as possible to develop smartphone apps on Android, thereby furthering copyright’s creativity objectives. In addition, Breyer J. ruled that Google’s use is “minimal,” about 0.4 percent of the total Java source code, and it does not diminish Java’s marketability since Android is used in different platforms (i.e., smartphones).
Whilesomeareabout the chilling effectthatthe decisionmay have on programming innovations,professionals have it. It accords with the that programmers rely on to pursue innovations. It also marks an important accommodation made in copyright law to face the new challenges posed by the booming IT industry.