Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Supreme Court Finds Google’s Copying of Oracle’s APIs a Fair Use

By Gary A. Kibel of Davis+Gilbert LLP, Marc J. Rachman of Davis+Gilbert LLP & Daniel Finnegan of Davis+Gilbert LLP on August 11, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

A recent Supreme Court decision has finally put an end to the longstanding fight between Oracle and Google concerning Google’s use of Oracle’s copyrighted Java Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). The Supreme Court’s decision held that, contrary to the decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which was discussed in our previous alert, Google’s use of Oracle’s APIs was protected by the copyright defense of Fair Use. This decision is likely to create greater opportunities for developers to use copyrighted API code.

Oracle’s Java Platform
Oracle owns the widely-used Java platform and Java programming language. The Java platform is available for free in certain circumstances under an open source license to be used to write and run programs that use the Java programming language, and it can run those programs across different types of hardware without having to rewrite the program for each different type. Oracle does, however, charge a licensing fee to developers who want to use its APIs in a competing platform or electronic device. By 2008, Java included 166 API packages.

In programming languages like Java, an API is essentially a coding shortcut. It is a “label” that is used to call up the actual code necessary to implement a given function (implementation code). By using these labels, programmers can use existing code to implement a function rather than having to write new code to implement that function for each new platform or system. This allows programmers to write code in a new environment without having to learn an entirely new coding language.

Oracle v. Google
In this case, Google copied 37 Java API packages and wrote its own implementation code underlying those API packages for use by developers on its Android operating system. Google hoped that by allowing Java developers to code using the same API shortcuts with which they were already familiar, they would attract developers to work on the Android system. Google had initially approached the original owner of Java, Sun Microsystems, prior to Oracle acquiring them, to pay a licensing fee for the use of these APIs on its competing Android platform, but those negotiations broke down and Google moved forward with using the APIs without a license.

Oracle filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming that by copying the 37 APIs, Google infringed Oracle’s copyrights in that code. Previously in the action, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the structure, sequencing, and organization of Java API packages were entitled to copyright protection. The Court of Appeals subsequently considered whether Google’s use of Oracle’s APIs was nonetheless excused by the defense of Fair Use, which operates as a limited exception to copyright infringement and allows the copying of a copyrighted work in limited circumstances. In considering the issue, the Court of Appeals held that the Fair Use defense was not applicable. Google then sought to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take on the issue.

The Decision of the Supreme Court
In its decision, the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals and held that Google’s use of the Java API packages was a Fair Use. The Copyright Act provides four non-exclusive factors to be considered when deciding whether the use of a copyrighted work is Fair Use:

  1. The purpose and character of use, including whether the use was commercial in nature and whether the use was transformative;
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion of the copyrighted work used; and
  4. The effect of the use on the market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The Supreme Court first considered the second factor and found that the APIs were further than most computer programs from the “core of copyright,” including because the copyrightable features of the APIs were functional and inherently bound together with ideas that could not be copyrighted, the APIs’ value derives in significant part from computer programmers investing their own time to learn the API system, and also because the value relies upon Google’s programmers learning and using Java in order to use other programs that Google did not copy.

Turning next to the first factor, the Court found that the purpose and character of Google’s use of the APIs was transformative because Google programmers used the APIs to develop new products for its Android smartphones and that the use of APIs furthered the development of these new products. The Court also considered that Google’s use of the APIs was undoubtedly commercial, but found that this was not dispositive of this factor, especially in light of the “transformative role” that the use of Oracle’s APIs played in developing the Android system.

Third, the Court looked to the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copyrighted work used, and noted that Google had copied only 11,500 lines of code out of 2.86 million lines, and noted that the amount used was “tethered” to the transformative purpose of the use, which weighed in favor of Fair Use.

Finally, the Supreme Court found that the market effects factor also weighed in favor of Fair Use in light of the uncertainty of Sun’s ability to compete with Android in the smartphone business (given that Java Se’s primary market was laptops and desktops), that Google’s desire to use Java stemmed more from programmers’ familiarity with the APIs as opposed to Sun’s investment in creating the APIs, and that enforcing Oracle’s copyright claim would risk harm to the public by limiting the future creativity of new programs.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Supreme Court held that Google’s use of Oracle’s API packages constituted Fair Use as a matter of law.

THE BOTTOM LINE

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Google v. Oracle, it is clear that not all copying of copyrighted code will subject a developer to liability.

The safest course for developers is to ensure that they have a license or are authorized to use API packages in accordance with the rights owner’s terms and conditions, even if that code is being used in a different device or environment.

If the Fair Use defense needs to be raised in connection with API copying, it is always advisable to first seek the advice of legal counsel.

Connect with Gary on LinkedIn.

Connect with Marc on LinkedIn.

Connect with Daniel on LinkedIn.

Photo of Gary A. Kibel of Davis+Gilbert LLP Gary A. Kibel of Davis+Gilbert LLP

For companies operating at the intersection of digital media, advertising, technology and consumer privacy, the legal landscape is rapidly evolving. Gary Kibel provides much-needed direction to clients involved in both emerging businesses and well-established companies engaging new technologies. While most of his clients…

For companies operating at the intersection of digital media, advertising, technology and consumer privacy, the legal landscape is rapidly evolving. Gary Kibel provides much-needed direction to clients involved in both emerging businesses and well-established companies engaging new technologies. While most of his clients are, broadly speaking, in the marketing industry, his deep knowledge of privacy and data security issues makes him a sought-after counselor to companies in the technology, e-commerce, financial services and employment sectors as well.

In the digital media space, where entire industries can rise and fall seemingly overnight, he helps his clients confidently navigate uncharted terrain. They count on him for guidance in complying with — and helping to shape — the best practices that must serve their industry in the absence of legal precedents. For more mature companies, he helps clients incorporate new concepts into existing infrastructures.

Much of Gary’s time is spent staying current in this fast-paced environment. Whether through his representation of key industry clients, his active involvement in trade associations or his recognized thought leadership, he is deeply immersed in the issues facing tech-forward companies. Clients call on him, literally every day, to provide crucial perspective on cutting-edge issues with enormous consequence to their business.

In the privacy space, where laws are rapidly evolving as well, Gary keeps his clients moving forward in a manner designed for compliance, taking care not to impede their progress. Part of his approach is to ensure that regulatory compliance, far from being a debilitating obstacle, can be turned to a strategic advantage by companies that can incorporate the right policies into their commercial platforms. For clients who may be targets of privacy complaints, he suggests timely and practical options, assuring that their disclosures and processes will be both comprehensive and well thought out.

Gary co-leads a team focused on the CCPA, GDPR, and other enacted and pending state and federal legislation, as well as self-regulatory regimes. In addition, he regularly advises clients regarding the burgeoning industry of CBD/cannabis marketing practices.

Read more about Gary A. Kibel of Davis+Gilbert LLPEmailGary's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Marc J. Rachman of Davis+Gilbert LLP Marc J. Rachman of Davis+Gilbert LLP

Marc Rachman, a partner in the Litigation + Dispute Resolution and Intellectual Property + Media Practice Groups, focuses on intellectual property (IP) counseling and litigation, advertising disputes and challenges, and complex commercial disputes. Marc’s experience spans the full range of IP, including trademark…

Marc Rachman, a partner in the Litigation + Dispute Resolution and Intellectual Property + Media Practice Groups, focuses on intellectual property (IP) counseling and litigation, advertising disputes and challenges, and complex commercial disputes. Marc’s experience spans the full range of IP, including trademark, copyright, false advertising, rights of publicity, trade secret and patent infringement disputes. He helps clients of all sizes assess, protect and optimize the value of their intellectual property.

Insightful and pragmatic, with a deep knowledge of his clients’ businesses and industries, Marc gets to the root of a matter quickly with strategic insight and practical solutions. His experience as a media planner before pursuing his legal career gives him a unique perspective when advising on advertising and media matters. Marc represents industry-leading advertising and marketing, financial services, digital media and adtech businesses, world-renowned entertainers, small businesses, and technology startups, among others.

Marc works closely with clients to assert and defend IP infringement claims, provides pre-litigation and litigation avoidance counseling, and advises on the use of IP in advertising, marketing and promotions. He has an impressive record in prosecuting and defending cases, and his knowledge of the courts and the alternative dispute resolution process helps him guide clients in deciding when to fight and when to settle. He is exceptionally swift and effective in resolving IP matters in court, before the USPTO and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and at the negotiating table.

Marc’s experience extends to copyright disputes concerning music, photo, pictorial, sculptural and literary works. He has also worked on trademark matters relating to word and design marks, trade dress, and nontraditional trademarks — including sounds and product designs — as well as celebrity images and personas. In recent years, he has been a driving force in developing and building the firm’s niche practice in defending graffiti art copyright infringement claims.

Marc has helped several celebrity clients address online reputation management issues. He also has extensive experience handling complex commercial disputes involving the enforcement of advertising agency-client agreements, digital advertising sales agreements, partnership dissolutions, employment terminations, and restrictive covenants and real estate leasing disputes.

Read more about Marc J. Rachman of Davis+Gilbert LLPEmailMarc's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Daniel Finnegan of Davis+Gilbert LLP Daniel Finnegan of Davis+Gilbert LLP

Daniel Finnegan represents a wide range of companies and creative agencies in complex commercial business litigation and employment-related litigation. He helps develop successful strategies and results through his critical thinking, diligence and creative approach to the litigation process as well as internal investigations.…

Daniel Finnegan represents a wide range of companies and creative agencies in complex commercial business litigation and employment-related litigation. He helps develop successful strategies and results through his critical thinking, diligence and creative approach to the litigation process as well as internal investigations.

Daniel supports all aspects of developing strategies for defendants and plaintiffs in high-stakes litigation, from contract disputes involving former business partners to merger and acquisition litigation claims exceeding $100 million. He also handles employment disputes relating to alleged discrimination and restrictive covenants.

As a strong analytical thinker, Daniel helps clients make smart decisions by understanding their potential risk and exposure. In all matters, he masters the facts and relevant law and pinpoints a matter’s strengths and weaknesses to determine the best way to achieve a client’s goals, either through litigation or alternative resolution.

Before Davis+Gilbert, Daniel was a litigation associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell, where he completed a secondment at HSBC within the bank’s internal investigations in-house legal group.

Read more about Daniel Finnegan of Davis+Gilbert LLPEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • PatentNext
  • Tressler Insurance Law Blog
  • Tressler Employment Law Blog
  • Inside Global Tech
  • Proskauer Whistleblower Defense
Copyright © 2023, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo