Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
593 U.S. 1
| SCOTUS | 2021Background
- Oracle (successor to Sun) owns Java SE; Google created Android and copied ~11,500 lines of Java SE "declaring" API code (37 packages) but wrote its own implementing code.
- Declaring code maps programmer method calls (e.g., java.lang.Math.max) to implementing code; it names and organizes methods, classes, and packages (the API's SSO).
- District Court found the declaring code uncopyrightable; Federal Circuit held it copyrightable and ordered a new trial on fair use; a jury later found for Google on fair use.
- Federal Circuit reversed the jury and held Google’s use was not fair; Supreme Court granted certiorari to review copyrightability and fair use.
- Supreme Court assumed, for argument, that the API portions are copyrightable and held Google’s copying was fair use as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Oracle) | Defendant's Argument (Google) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyrightability of API declaring code | Declaring code and SSO are original expressive code and copyrightable | Declaring code is a "method of operation" / system and uncopyrightable under §102(b) | Court assumed for argument the code is copyrightable and did not decide the issue |
| Was Google’s copying a fair use? | Copying was verbatim, took the heart, served same purpose and harmed Oracle’s market — not fair use | Reimplementation was transformative: limited to what was necessary to enable Java programmers to work on Android; promoted creation of new products | Google’s use was fair use as a matter of law |
| Standard of review and Seventh Amendment issue | Jury verdict should be reviewed under substantial-evidence standard; jury decides fair use | Fair use is mixed Q of law/fact but ultimate determination is legal and subject to de novo review | Fair use is mixed; courts defer to jury on underlying facts but decide ultimate fair-use issue de novo; no Seventh Amendment violation |
| Application of §107 factors (nature, purpose, amount, market) | Factors favor Oracle: functional copying, commercial use, took focal elements, harmed licensing market | Factors favor Google: declaring code is interface-bound, use was transformative (reimplementation), amount tethered to purpose, Android not a market substitute | All four statutory factors (on record) weigh in favor of fair use; judgment for Google reversed to judgment for fair use |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (established transformative-use inquiry for factor one)
- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (originality standard; "thin" copyright for factual compilations)
- Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (market harm and the "heart" of the work under factor three/four)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (adapting fair use to technological change)
- Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880) (idea–expression dichotomy; methods of operation not copyrightable)
- Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975) (fair use as an "equitable rule of reason")
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (distinction between legal and jury issues; relevance to allocation of legal questions)
- Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) (reverse-engineering and fair use in software contexts)
- Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) (intermediate copying for compatibility can be fair use)
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (functional copying and fair-use considerations)