Google is breathing a sigh of relief after winning a decade-long court battle that could have cost the company billions. The dispute centered on Google’s use of Oracle code in its Android Operating system.
The mobile operating system is used in an estimated 70% of smartphones across the globe and, had Google lost the case, the costs would have run into billions of dollars.
Oracle had begun the action in 2010, suing Google for what it said was copied computer code. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled six to two in favor of Google. This overturned a lower court’s earlier judgment that had ruled in favor of Oracle.
The court battle revolved around whether Google’s use of Oracle’s Java API, could be classified as fair use under U.S. copyright law. Java API is a commonly used “building block” that programmers use to build applications.
If the court decided that Google’s use of Java API was covered by the “fair use” clause, then the fact that Google was accused of copying over 11,000 lines of code would be irrelevant. Luckily for Google that was the court’s decision.
Justice Stephen Breyer said in his written opinion that – “To allow enforcement of Oracle’s copyright here would risk harm to the public. So many programmers used and had a deep knowledge of Oracle’s building blocks that such a move would turn computer code into a lock, limiting the future creation of new programs. Oracle alone would hold the key.”
Unsurprisingly, Oracle has strongly disagreed with the court’s ruling. They say it further increases Google’s power and is damaging to other companies’ ability to compete with the tech giant.
Dorian Daley, Oracle’s general counsel said in a statement that, “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.”
Google claimed the decision was a victory for the whole software industry.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision in Google v Oracle is a big win for innovation, interoperability, and computing,” said Ken Walker, Google’s Senior Vice President for global affairs.
Whilst the majority of judges voted in favor of Google’s position, it wasn’t a unanimous decision. One dissenting voice was that of Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote that “allowing fair use simply because it allows new products to be created, effectively redefines the idea. He warned – “That new definition eviscerates copyright.”
He went onto say that he was disappointed that the majority had decided not to rule on whether the code was copyrightable, but had instead delayed that question and based the decision on the principle of fair use.
“The majority cannot square its fundamentally flawed fair-use analysis with a finding that declaring code is copyrightable.” He wrote of his peers.