Google vs.

Oracle: Supreme Court Decision Reshapes Software Copyright

Law

Abstract
On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court delivered its much-anticipated ruling in Google LLC v.
Oracle America Inc., marking the end of a decade-long legal battle over software copyright
between the two tech giants. The Court, in what has been called the "copyright case of the
century," ruled in favour of Google, determining that Google’s use of the “declaring code”
from the Java SE application programming interface (API) constituted fair use and did not
violate Oracle’s copyright on Java. Formally, the Court’s decision was fairly specific,
concluding that Google’s replication of certain code from the Java API—referred to by the
Court as the “reimplementation of a user interface”—fell under fair use, based on a "case-by-
case" evaluation of the statutory fair use factors. However, the practical implications of this
decision are likely to be profound for the software industry and could also influence the
interpretation of fair use in other copyrightable domains, such as art, music, and television.
This overview examines the fundamentals of software copyright, the dispute in Google v.
Oracle, the Supreme Court’s ruling1, and the potential impacts on the tech industry and other
sectors reliant on copyright. It also touches on key considerations for Congress moving
forward. The decision also emphasizes how crucial it is to strike a balance between
intellectual property rights and innovation, particularly in the quickly changing IT sector. The
Supreme Court's decision to support Google has established a precedent that could lead to
more expansive interpretations of fair use, which could promote increased adaptability and
inventiveness in the software development sector and beyond.

Fundamentals of Software Copyright

Copyright law gives authors of original works—such as music, novels, visual arts, and
architecture—certain exclusive rights.2 Computer programs are now officially recognized as
literary works under the Copyright Act as of 1980. However, because software is more
functional than other protected publications, it has been difficult to apply standard copyright
principles—which were first created for books—to computer code. Determining the proper

1
Available at: 18-956 Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (04/05/2021) (supremecourt.gov) (Last accessed on
18th August, 2024)
2
Available at: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2020/18-956 (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
extent of copyright protection for computer code has long been a source of contention for
courts. When the Supreme Court last considered software copyright in the 1990s, a 4–4 split
prevented it from setting any legally enforceable precedent.

Three key doctrines influence the extent of copyright protection for computer code. The first
is the idea/expression dichotomy, outlined in Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act 3, which
clarifies that copyright protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems,
methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries. This principle stems from the
Supreme Court's 1880 ruling in Baker v. Selden, where the Court held that copyright in a
book describing an accounting system only covered the specific expression of the system (the
book’s "expression") and not the system itself (the book’s "idea").

The second doctrine, known as merger, is related to the idea/expression distinction. When
there are only a limited number of ways to express an idea, the expression and the idea are
considered to "merge," rendering neither copyrightable. This prevents copyright from being
used to monopolize an idea by protecting all possible expressions of it. The idea/expression
distinction and merger both aim to prevent copyright from being used to monopolize general
ideas or functional systems. However, because computer programs primarily serve functional
purposes, applying the idea/expression distinction to software is particularly complex.

The third doctrine is fair use, which allows limited use of copyrighted works that would
otherwise be considered infringement, such as in parodies or book reviews. Courts evaluate
fair use by considering several factors:
(1) the purpose and character of the use,
(2) the nature of the original work,
(3) the amount and significance of what was copied, and
(4) the impact of the use on the market for the original work. 4 Under the first factor, courts
also consider whether the use is “transformative”—whether it adds new expression, serves a
different purpose, or alters the original work with new meaning. Fair use has a broad

3
Available at: 17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal
Information Institute (cornell.edu) (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
4
Available at: Google v Oracle: Supreme Court declares Google's code copying fair (bbc.com) (Last accessed
on 18th August, 2024)
application, and courts often rely on it to prevent rigid copyright enforcement that could stifle
the creativity that copyright law is meant to protect.5

The Dispute between Google & Oracle

The dispute in Google v. Oracle centres around the Android operating system for
smartphones. In developing Android, Google copied specific elements of Oracle’s Java
programming language and platform. Java contains thousands of methods, collectively
known as the API, which are modules that application developers can use to perform certain
functions without having to write basic code from scratch. For instance, Java’s “Math” class
includes a “max” method, allowing programmers to easily determine and output the larger of
two input values using the pre-built function java. lang. Math. max(x, y) instead of creating
their code for the task. Java organizes these methods into classes, which are further grouped
into packages. To build Android, Google copied the “declaring code” from 37 of the 166
packages in the Java API. The declaring code includes the function's name (like “max”), its
syntax, and its placement within Java’s structure (such as within the “math” class). Google
wrote Android’s “implementing code,” the functional code that executes the method,
independently. In total, Google copied over 11,000 lines of code (out of approximately 15
million lines in Android) so that developers could use familiar Java calls when creating
applications for Android. Oracle filed a lawsuit against Google in 2010, alleging copyright
infringement and other claims, seeking billions in damages. Although a jury concluded that
Google had violated Oracle's copyright, they couldn't agree on how to apply the verdict
fairly.6 The district court judge later reversed the infringement conviction, finding that the
merger theory and the idea/expression distinction did not grant copyright protection to the
declaring code in question, which included the structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of
the Java API. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that the declaring
code and the API's SSO were copyrightable because neither the merger doctrine nor the
idea/expression distinction (Section 102(b)) applied, and therefore partially upheld and
partially reversed this ruling. A second jury found that Google's usage of the declaring code
was reasonable after the case was remanded.

5
Available at: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. - Harvard Law Review (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
6
Available at: Microsoft Word - 2021_Oracle_Full.docx (secureserver.net) (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
Oracle appealed once more, and the Federal Circuit reversed again, ruling that Google’s use
of Java’s declaring code and the API SSO was not fair as a matter of law.7

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to address two primary issues:
(1) whether copyright protection extends to a software interface, and
(2) whether Google’s use of a software interface to create a new computer program
constitutes fair use, as determined by the jury.
Additionally, the Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing on a third issue—the
appropriate standard of review for a jury verdict on fair use, particularly concerning the
implications of the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil
cases, including those involving copyright and monetary damages.

The Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court sided with Google, ruling 6-2 that Google's cloning of Oracle's Java code
constituted fair use and did not violate Oracle's copyright. The reason for Justice Amy Coney
Barrett's absence from the case argument was probably that she had not yet joined the Court.
The Court opted not to examine the copyrightability of the Java API's declaring code, noting
the software industry's "rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related
circumstances" as justification. This decision is noteworthy. Rather, the Court concentrated
only on the fair use question, presumably because the eight members of the Court were
unable to agree on the copyrightability problem. The Court declared that it only had to settle
the issues that were essential to the dispute.8

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, centred the opinion on fair use. The Court
clarified that fair use is a mixed question of fact and law, meaning that while factual
questions (like market harm) can be resolved by a jury, the ultimate determination of fair use
is a legal question that courts can review de novo. Thus, the Court rejected Google’s
argument that jury verdicts on fair use should be deferred to by reviewing courts and that the
Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial on fair use issues.

7
Available at: google-llc-oracle-am-inc-2021.pdf (copyright.gov) (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
8
Available at: Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. - SCOTUSblog (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
The Court then analysed the fair use factors, emphasising that fair use is a “flexible” doctrine
that should be evaluated on a contextual, “case-by-case” basis. In this case, the Court
analysed the factors out of order, beginning with the second factor—the nature of the
copyrighted work.9 Justice Breyer’s opinion focused on the highly functional nature of
declaring code, which the Court found to be “inherently bound together with uncopyrightable
ideas” such as the division of tasks and organisation in a user interface. This made the
declaring code less central to copyright protection, there by broadening the scope of fair use.

The Court next considered the first fair use factor—the purpose and character of the use—and
concluded that Google’s use was “transformative.” Despite Google copying the declaring
code verbatim, the Court found that Google used it to create a “new platform” (the Android
operating system) for a different computing environment (smartphones, rather than desktop
computers). The Court described this as a form of interface “reimplementation,” where
existing code is repurposed so that programmers can use their existing skills in a new system.
The Court gave less weight to Google’s profit-driven motives, noting that many fair uses are
commercial.10

For the third factor—the amount and substantiality of what was copied—the Court found that
Google’s copying, though amounting to 11,500 lines of code, was a small part (0.4%) of the
overall Java API, which contains 2.86 million lines when considering Google’s
transformative purpose.

On the fourth factor—market effects—the Court considered both the potential harm to
Oracle’s market and the public benefits of the copying. 11 The Court deferred to the jury’s
finding that Android did not harm Java’s market because Android targeted a different market
(smartphones) rather than competing directly with Java. The Court argued that enforcing
Oracle’s copyright in this context could harm the public by limiting future creativity and
interoperability, which is contrary to the copyright’s goal of promoting creativity.

9
Available at: Google v. Oracle: Supreme Court Rules for Google in Landmark Software Copyright Case
(congress.gov) (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
10
Available at: Supreme Court Backs Google in Copyright Fight With Oracle - The New York Times
(nytimes.com) (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
11
Available at: Why Google's Big Supreme Court Win Over Oracle Matters | TIME (Last accessed on 18th
August, 2024)
Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissenting, they chastised the majority for
sidestepping the crucial issue of whether declaring code to be copyrightable. Declaring code
to be copyrightable, according to the dissent, is justified since the Copyright Act shields all
computer programs equally, regardless of the kind of code. The opposition also contested
Google's claim that the idea/expression concept (Section 102(b)) renders declaring code to be
an uncopyrightable "method of operation," arguing that the precise wording of the Copyright
Act ought to be applied.12

Regarding fair use, the dissenters agreed that Congress did not intend to exempt computer
code from the fair use doctrine but argued that the majority’s analysis effectively created a
copyrightability distinction between declaring and implementing code that Congress had
13
rejected. The dissent found Google’s use to be more commercial and derivative than
transformative, that Google copied the “heart” of Java’s API, and that Google’s actions had a
severe impact on Oracle’s potential market for Java. With at least three factors against
Google, the dissent concluded that the second factor alone could not justify a finding of fair
use.

Effects on Technology and Other Industries with High Copyright

Reactions from tech-industry stakeholders to the decision were largely positive, though
varied. Many expressed relief, seeing it as a validation of the industry's long-standing practice
of software reimplementation, particularly for APIs and interfaces. Although the Court did
not address all potential reuses of declaring code or other interfaces, the dissent noted that the
majority's fair use analysis makes it "difficult to imagine any circumstance in which declaring
code will remain protected by copyright."14 Some observers welcomed this as a boost for
innovation, fostering greater interoperability, reuse of interfaces, and encouraging new
entrants into software markets. Others, however, viewed the decision as potentially

12
Available at: GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal
Information Institute (cornell.edu) (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
13
Available at: GOOGLE vs. ORACLE: A Tussle For Copyrightability Of API - Patent - Intellectual Property -
India (mondaq.com) (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
14
Available at: Google v. Oracle: Supreme Court hands Google a victory in a multibillion-dollar case | CNN
Business (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
weakening the value of software copyright, which could discourage investment by reducing
incentives to develop interfaces like Java’s API.

It's unclear how the ruling will affect other copyright-sensitive sectors of the economy. For
instance, stakeholders in the entertainment sector voiced concerns that the decision might
weaken protections against unauthorized derivative works by extending the definition of
"transformative" and "public benefit," thus extending the reach of fair use in other contexts.
Some litigants have already cited the Google decision in a high-profile copyright dispute
involving Andy Warhol’s works. While the Court sought to limit its ruling by stating that it
did not overturn or modify previous fair use cases, history suggests that the Court’s decisions
have often influenced how lower courts interpret fair use. 15 How the Google ruling,
particularly its focus on the second fair use factor, its broad view of "transformativeness," and
its consideration of public harms and benefits under the fourth factor, will impact future
copyright cases across various creative fields remains to be seen.16

Conclusion
The ruling in Google v. Oracle by the Supreme Court is a turning point in the development of
software copyright law, changing the parameters of fair use within the technology sector and
maybe beyond. The Court's decision to support Google suggests that fair use will be
interpreted more broadly and leniently, especially when it comes to useful software
components like APIs. By promoting more interoperability and reimplementation methods,
this decision may stimulate innovation by enabling developers to expand on current
technology in novel and inventive ways.17 But the ruling also raises questions, especially
about how it will be implemented in other sectors of the economy that depend on copyright
protection. The Court's emphasis on the declaring code's functional aspect and its expansive
interpretation of "transformativeness" could put existing copyright regimes in jeopardy and
increase litigation as stakeholders and courts work through this unfamiliar legal territory.
Policymakers, business executives, and legal specialists will need to strike a balance between
the need to safeguard intellectual property rights and the advancement of innovation as this
15
Available at: Supreme Court Hands Google A Win Over Oracle In Multibillion-Dollar Case : NPR (Last
accessed on 18th August, 2024)
16
Available at: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. - An Analysis - iPleaders (Last accessed on 18th August,
2024)
17
Available at: Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. | Oyez (Last accessed on 18th August, 2024)
decision's ramifications become clear in order to guarantee that the advantages of this historic
ruling are felt throughout the creative spectrum.18

18
Available at: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. - Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center