On April 5, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Google's copying of the Java SE API which included only lines of code to allow programmers to create new and transformative program was fair use. Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., No. 18-956 (April 5, 2021). Oracle owns the copyright in Java SE. In 2005, Google sought to build a new Android software platform for mobile devices and copied roughly 11,500 lines of code from Java SE program. The copied API allows programmers to create their own programs. Federal Circuit held that the copied lines were copyrightable and later, a jury found for Google on fair use. The Federal Circuit reversed concluding that Google's copying was not a fair use as a matter of law and prior to remand for a trial on damages, the Supreme Court granted cert.
The Court held that Google's copying of the Java SE API was a fair use. In a 6-2 opinion, Justice Breyer considered the four guiding factors in the Copyright Act's fair use provisions: (1) purpose and character of the use; (2) 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. In finding fair use, the Court reasoned the following: (1) the copied lines of code are part of a user interface that provides a way for programmers to access prewritten computer code through the use of simple commands; (2) Google's limited copying of the API is a transformative use; (3) Google's copying of 11,500 lines of code was only 0.4% of the entire API; and (4) Google's Android platform is not a market substitute for Jave SE and the copyright holder would benefit from reimplementation of its interface into a different market.
Full text of the opinion is available here.
The Court held that Google's copying of the Java SE API was a fair use. In a 6-2 opinion, Justice Breyer considered the four guiding factors in the Copyright Act's fair use provisions: (1) purpose and character of the use; (2) 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. In finding fair use, the Court reasoned the following: (1) the copied lines of code are part of a user interface that provides a way for programmers to access prewritten computer code through the use of simple commands; (2) Google's limited copying of the API is a transformative use; (3) Google's copying of 11,500 lines of code was only 0.4% of the entire API; and (4) Google's Android platform is not a market substitute for Jave SE and the copyright holder would benefit from reimplementation of its interface into a different market.
Full text of the opinion is available here.
RSS Feed
