Google apparently included about 11,000 lines of source code owned by Oracle in its early Android operating systems. Oracle argued that the source code was copyrightable and hence Google had violated the copyright and thus claimed damages. The matter reached the Supreme Court of the United States where recently, the Court held through a majority decision of 6-2 that the Google’s use of the copyright was fair. Implied was the fair use doctrine enabled Google to use these lines of code despite them protected by copyright. Interestingly, the Supreme Court while assuming them to be copyrightable did not express any opinion on whether the code is protected by copyright. It confined only to the question of it being fair use or otherwise. This represents to many a decisive victory in the fair use doctrine. The ruling would perhaps open up several vistas in the startup industry. Many of the technological industries and the ecosystem they have nurtured would gain a boost with this ruling. Oracle had claimed damages to the extent of US$8.8 billion. The two jury trials in the District Court had ruled in favor of Google, yet the Federal Circuit court had reversed both the decisions. Google’s cert petition with the Supreme Court was accepted even though the Solicitor General had expressed his reservations about the same.
Application Program Interfaces (APIs) are essentially specifications that allows programs to communicate with each other. For instance, if someone were to share an online resource with their contacts on Facebook or Whatsapp or Twitter or any other medium they use an API. This API would have been sourced directly from the social media platform by the website owner. Any software operating system or otherwise needs code which is something common sense. Google used its own Java code to design the API for its Android operating system. But it made use of the same names, organization and functionality as the Java APIs. This was something found objectionable by Oracle which contended these lines of code were copyrighted by it.
In 2014, the Federal Circuit held that Oracle’s code was copyrightable. When it was heard again in the Court in the Northern District of California, Google’s defence was it was for fair use. The court upheld the Google’s contention. Against this judgment in 2016, Oracle filed a motion appealing against this verdict which the court denied. This led Oracle to appeal against the adversarial fair use ruling in the Federal Court. Meanwhile Google also filed an appeal in the Federal Circuit to protect the claim that Java APIs in question were not copyrightable. The Federal Circuit Court reversed the decision of the District Court. It further remanded the case for trial for damages claimed by Oracle against Google. It was against this decision that Google appealed and managed to get favorable decision from the Supreme Court.
Google’s appeal was on consideration for two grounds. The copyright protection under the current legislation would not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery and so on. Secondly, Google claimed the copyright holder cannot prevent another entity from making what is termed as fair use of the copyrighted work. While the dissenting judgment focused on the copyrightable principles, the majority assuming the code to be copyrightable examined the applicability of fair use.
The Supreme Court believed that fair use doctrine was flexible and accommodated for changes in technology. Unlike copyrightable works, computer programs were different since they served a functional purpose. Therefore a context based check to keep copyright monopoly under bounds was important. The fair use doctrine is a matter of law rather than facts thus a jury trial is not something a right to resolve fair use issues. To the Supreme Court, any decision on the fair use would have to be guided by the four factors that were inherent in the legislation on Copyright. The first was the purpose and character of use. Secondly, it has to examine the nature of copyrighted work. Third, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work has to be checked. Finally, the effect of the use upon the potential market of the value of the copyrighted work has to be examined. The Court further observed that certain factors gained greater importance over others in differing context rather than a blanket application to each and every case.
The Supreme Court in its majority decision overwhelmingly favored the fair use doctrine in relation to the purpose and character of use. The lines were part of user interface that provides the way for the programmers to access pre-written codes through the use of simple commands. In this Supreme Court held that the coyrighted lines are inherently bound by the uncopyrightable ideas and creation of new creative expression. Google’s programmers had independently developed the code whereas the overall organization of the API is an idea that cannot be copyrighted.
The purpose and character of use, to borrow from the Supreme Court, was linked to the transformative nature of the code. In this, it examined whether the code added something new with a further purpose or different character. Since Google’s purpose was to create different task related system for a different computing environment and for a different platform, the purpose seemed served. Google’s use was consistent with the objectives of the current legislation. It copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in different computing environment.
The third set of principles that were examined was the substantiality of the use. It held that the 11,000 lines copied was only 0.4% of the total lines in the code. The copied lines of the code was inextricably linked to the other lines of the code that are accessed by the programmers. The application was clear instance of bringing in some utility to a new computing environment rather than aesthetics. Therefore, Supreme Court held the substantiality principle to be of fair use.
In terms of effect of value of the original code, Google’s Android was not a substitute for the Java SE and further the copyright holder of the Java SE would benefit from the reimplementation of the code into a different market. The Supreme Court held that copyright enforcement would result in creativity hindering harms on the public. Therefore, it decided to hold it to fair use.
As one examines the basic contours of the case, it was clear, that this does represent quite a path breaking opportunity for new avenues in app development. As the world moves into an app based universe, it is important to highlight these cases of code copyrights would be often subject of legal disputes. The Supreme Court sets in motion for quite a bit of time to encouragement of fair use for the code in relation to new environments.
Thoughts on Theory and Practice 