By Brent Kendall and Tripp Mickle
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled for Alphabet Inc.'s Google
in a multibillion-dollar battle with Oracle Corp. over elements of
Google's Android smartphone-operating system, a decision that could
weaken software copyright protections but allow developers more
room to build on each other's products.
The court, in a 6-2 opinion Monday by Justice Stephen Breyer,
threw out a lower-court ruling for Oracle that said Android
infringed its copyrights on the Java software platform. The high
court said Google's copying of some Java API code was fair use.
APIs, or application programming interfaces, are prewritten
packages of computer code that allow programs, websites or apps to
talk to one another.
"Google's copying did not violate the copyright law," Justice
Breyer wrote.
Oracle, which acquired the Java technology when it bought Sun
Microsystems Inc. in 2010, accused Google of illegally copying more
than 11,000 lines of Java API code to develop Android, which runs
more than two billion mobile devices world-wide.
Oracle previously sought as much as $9 billion in damages from
Google, though the company might have faced challenges in
collecting that much in penalty proceedings had it won in the high
court.
The ruling didn't do away with copyright protections for APIs
but dealt a blow to them nevertheless, a potential setback for
companies that hold copyrights in software platforms that took
considerable time and money to build.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent Monday, said the court's
generous fair-use analysis in Google's favor "is wholly
inconsistent with the substantial protection Congress gave to
computer code."
Some software and app developers, especially emerging ones,
supported Google in the case, stressing the need for some fair use
of software interfaces to promote follow-on technologies and
interoperability among programs. Microsoft Corp. and a leading
association of internet companies also supported Google.
Kent Walker, Google's chief legal officer and senior vice
president for global affairs, said the ruling provides legal
certainty to the next generation of developers whose new products
and services would benefit consumers.
"Innovation happens by standing on each other's shoulders and
that is what's going on here," Mr. Walker said in an interview.
"These are tools we use every day, methods of operation in the
everyday world. The idea of fair use is beneficial for everyone in
the industry."
Aside from the potential loss of billions in damages, the ruling
is unlikely to have a major immediate impact on Oracle, which isn't
in the mobile phone business, though the chipping away of copyright
protections could have longer-term ramifications.
"The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater.
The barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower,"
Oracle said in a statement. "They stole Java and spent a decade
litigating as only a monopolist can. This behavior is exactly why
regulatory authorities around the world and in the United States
are examining Google's business practices."
Shares of Oracle and Google's parent, Alphabet, rose more than
3% on the day, outperforming the broader market and the technology
sector. The S&P 500 climbed 1.5% behind last week's strong jobs
report.
The decade-old case had been closely watched in tech circles and
beyond. Businesses that rely heavily on copyright protections,
including in the movie, music and publishing industries, filed
legal briefs supporting Oracle that expressed concerns about
Google's claims to fair use of content created by others.
The Supreme Court in its ruling said it consciously chose not to
decide the broadest legal issue in the case: whether API code was
eligible for copyright protection at all.
"Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and
business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer
more than is necessary to resolve the parties' dispute," Justice
Breyer wrote for the court.
So while the court assumed Oracle's Java API was eligible for
copyright protection, it went on to say that Google had the better
argument on the doctrine of fair use, a concept designed to prevent
copyrights from stifling the development of new products and
services.
"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," Justice Breyer
wrote.
Lower-court decisions for Oracle had sowed uncertainty about
longstanding practices among software developers who have long
relied on established software interfaces as a foundation for new
innovations in computing, a practice the Supreme Court decision
effectively reaffirmed, said Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law
and information at the University of California, Berkeley.
The ruling provides reassurance to developers who have made APIs
central to the creation of the software driving the
multibillion-dollar app economy, which could have been impaired by
a ruling in favor of Oracle, said Ms. Samuelson, who has been
writing about digital copyright rules since the 1980s and wrote an
amicus brief in support of Google.
"This opinion recognizes the importance of being able to reuse
some elements of computer programs to make them compatible with
other programs," she said. "In today's interoperable world, you
need to be able to use the building blocks."
But Karsten Weide, a digital-media analyst with International
Data Corp., a market research firm, said the Supreme Court decision
could encourage more software-related lawsuits in the future -- and
more code copying.
Because the court didn't rule on whether APIs are eligible for
copyright protection, software developers could begin to use a
peers' code without licensing it or securing permission, he
said.
"Startups will say, 'I spent a lot of time developing this code
and Google or someone else can just come along and steal it,'" Mr.
Weide said.
The court said Google's copying for the Android system amounted
to just 0.4% of the 2.86 million lines of Java API computer code.
Justice Breyer compared the code at issue to "a gas pedal in a car
that tells the car to move faster or the QWERTY keyboard on a
typewriter that calls up a certain letter when you press a
particular key."
Joining the majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett
Kavanaugh.
In dissent, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, said
Google's copying was unfair and contrasted it, for example, with
Apple Inc., which wrote its own code for similar purposes.
The dissenters said Oracle spent years developing a programming
library that attracted software developers and noted that Google's
copying came after the two sides couldn't agree on licensing terms.
Google's move also eventually upended the value of deals Oracle had
struck with Amazon.com Inc. and others, the dissenters said.
"Google decimated Oracle's market and created a mobile operating
system now in over 2.5 billion actively used devices, earning tens
of billions of dollars every year," Justice Thomas wrote.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn't participate in the case, which
was argued before she joined the court.
Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com and Tripp Mickle
at Tripp.Mickle@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
April 05, 2021 17:29 ET (21:29 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Oracle (NYSE:ORCL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Oracle (NYSE:ORCL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024