MENU Close
Close
  • Home
  • Services
  • Attorneys
  • Resources
  • News & Events
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Join our Team
Search
Back
    Quick Links:
    Join Webinar
    Read News
    Our Location
    A
    Alternative Dispute ResolutionAntitrust & Trade RegulationAppellate Practice
    B
    Banking & Financial ServicesBankruptcy, Creditors’ Rights, and Financial RestructuringBeer LawBusiness Law
    C
    Cannabis LawConstruction LawCriminal Defense
    E
    Economic Development LawElder Care & Special Needs LawElectronic Discovery ("E-Discovery")Environmental LawEstate Planning and Administration & Wealth PreservationExecutive Compensation, Employment, ERISA, and Employee Benefits
    F
    Food, Beverage & HospitalityFranchise Law
    H
    Health Care & Life SciencesHealth Care ProvidersHigher EducationHospitals and Health Networks
    I
    ImmigrationInsurance CoverageIntellectual PropertyIntellectual Property Litigation, Arbitration, and Dispute ResolutionIntellectual Property Portfolio Strategy, Management & LicensingInternational BusinessInternet Law
    L
    Labor & EmploymentLiquor Law, Licensing, Manufacturing, and DistributionLitigation
    M
    Media LawMergers & AcquisitionsMunicipal Law
    N
    Non-Profit Law
    P
    Patent Preparation and ProsecutionPharmaceutical / Medical Devices / Pharma ServicesProducts and Consumer Liability DefenseProfessional LiabilityPublic Utilities
    R
    Real Estate, Finance, and Land Use
    S
    SecuritiesSolar Energy
    T
    TaxationTelecommunicationsTrademark & Copyright Protection & Enforcement
    V
    Venture Tech & Emerging Growth Companies
    W
    White Collar Investigations & DefenseWorkers’ Compensation
    • New Jersey
    • New York
    • Pennsylvania
    • Blogs
    • Articles
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Resources
    • News
    • Events
    • Webinars
    • About Us
    • Delivering Value
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Meritas

    New Jersey

    400 Crossing Boulevard
    8th Floor
    Bridgewater, NJ 08807
    Phone:(908) 722-0700
    Fax:(908) 722-0755

    28 Valley Road
    Suite 1
    Montclair, NJ 07042

    New York

    7 Times Square
    21st Floor
    New York City, NY 10036
    Phone:(212) 808-0700
    Fax:(212) 808-0844

    Pennsylvania

    515 West Hamilton Street
    Suite 502
    Allentown, PA 18101
    Phone:(610) 391-1800
    Fax:(610) 391-1805

    • What sets us apart
    • Attorneys
    • Other Professionals
    • Professional Development
    • Non-Discrimination Policy

    Categories

    Copyright Copyright Infringement Copyright Licensing Copyright Office Court Decisions Double Patenting>Same Invention Double Patenting>Terminal Disclaimers Drafting Patents Drafting Patents>Claims Drafting Patents>Claims>Written Description False Advertising Federal Circuit Food & Beverage General In The News Intellectual Property Labeling Lanham Act Legislation Licensing Navigating the Patent Office Navigating the Patent Office>Examiner Interviews Obviousness/Inventive Step>Prima Facie Obviousness Patent Patent Eligibility Privacy Right of Publicity Social Media Supreme Court Trade Dress Trademark Infringement Trademark Infringement|Trademark Registration|Trademarks Trademark Infringement|Trademarks Trademark Office Trademark Registration Trademark Registration|Trademarks Trademarks TTAB Uncategorized Unfair Competition
    Blogs > More Than Your Mark® > The Google v. Oracle Copyright...
    Member
    Jeanne Hamburg
    Visit Profile

    The Google v. Oracle Copyright Dispute

    The Google v. Oracle Copyright Dispute

    In an important decision that many were watching for guidance on the scope of copyright protection afforded software, in the recent Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. copyright dispute, the Supreme Court weighed in on the scope of protection available for application programming interfaces (APIs).

    Google’s Use of Java-Based Interfaces

    In 1990, Sun Microsystems developed a new programming language called Java, as well as several APIs that made it easier for programs that are written in Java to be used on any user’s device. Nearly 15 years later, Google purchased Android from a new startup and used Java’s APIs (without permission) when developing its operating system for its smartphones and other Android devices.

    In 2010, Sun Microsystems was purchased by Oracle, which soon claimed that Google had infringed on its copyright by using code from Java’s platform without permission. Google countered, stating that its use of Java-like interfaces was protected by the fair use doctrine, as using similar APIs made Android devices more accessible to other users and application developers, thereby benefiting an entire community of programmers. Oracle pursued its claim, seeking damages for the monetary gain it would have received if Google had obtained a proper licensing agreement for the APIs.

    The Supreme Court’s 2021 Ruling

    In early April, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an official ruling on the Google-Oracle dispute on whether Google’s unlicensed use of the Java code constituted a copyright infringement or was a fair use of the material.

    The Court’s analysis focused on the four-pronged test for fair use: the nature of the copyrighted work, the purpose and character of the use, the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted material, and the market effect of the appropriation of the APIs. On the first factor, the Court found that the APIs served as declaring code rather than implementation, furthering an organizational function similar to the Dewey Decimal System, thus favoring fair use. The Court also ruled that Google transformed the Java APIs “to expand the use and usefulness of the Android-based smartphones,” thus creating “a new platform that could be readily used by programmers,” and that Google limited its use of the Java APIs “as needed to include tasks that would be useful in smartphone programs,” favoring fair use.

    Turning to the amount and substantiality of the code taken, the Court found that Google, in taking only .4% of the total Java source code, did not copy the code that was at the heart of how Java was implemented and that “Google copied those lines not because of their creativity, their beauty, or even (in a sense) because of their purpose. It copied them because programmers had already learned to work with [Java] and it would have been difficult ….to attract programmers to…Android…without them.” Without this access, the Court argued, Java developers (and other users) would have needed to write more original code to perform the same functions. For these reasons, the Court found that Google’s use of Java fell within the purview of the fair use doctrine. Finally, in determining whether the copying had impacted Oracle’s market for the code, the Court stated that if it had found for Oracle, it “would risk harm to the public,” as “Oracle alone would hold the key. The result could well prove highly profitable to Oracle (or other firms holding a copyright in computer interfaces) ... [but] the lock would interfere with, not further, copyright's basic creativity objectives.”

    While the effects of this ruling remain to be seen, it is anticipated that the Court’s decision will be used by other companies who use pre-existing code, including APIs, to perform common functions, and who could now be protected from prosecution for “unlicensed” use.

    Call Today for Help with a Computer Software-Related Copyright Dispute

    To learn more about copyright infringement and fair use as they relate to the development and use of computer code or any related intellectual property matters, please contact me at jhamburg@norris-law.com.

    Member
    Jeanne Hamburg
    Visit Profile

    Related Posts

    Lawsuit claims TEXAS PETE is deceptive Future of Fitness Apps in Question as Adidas files lawsuit against Nike Fair Use or Foul Play?

    Share

    Tags

    #litigation #protection #US Supreme Court

    Similar Posts

    April 7, 2023
    Internet Archive’s Unauthorized Lending of Copyrighted eBooks is Not Fair Use
    Internet Archive’s Unauthorized Lending of Copyrighted eBooks is Not Fair Use
    November 18, 2022
    The Importance of Copyright Registration
    The Importance of Copyright Registration
    September 2, 2022
    Artificial Intelligence Cannot Serve as an Inventor of a Patentable Invention
    Artificial Intelligence Cannot Serve as an Inventor of a Patentable Invention

    Helpful links

    • About Us
    • News
    • Services
    • Blogs
    • Attorneys
    • Articles
    • (COVID-19)
    • Events
    • Join our Team
    Connect

    Connect with Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Instagram
    • Youtube

    Join our growing team

    We are looking for quality attorneys to help us do more for our clients. At Norris McLaughlin, each attorney has the same opportunity to succeed whether you’re at the beginning of a career or pinnacle of the profession.

    Learn More

    Subscribe to our content

    Receive timely legal information delivered to your inbox

    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
    © , Norris McLaughlin, P.A., All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
    VIEW OUR DISCLAIMER,  TERMS OF USE,  AND PRIVACY POLICY

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume you consent to our cookie policy. Learn more