Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by martyb on Monday April 05 2021, @06:48PM   Printer-friendly

We had two Soylentils write in with this breaking news. See other reports at Ars Technica, BBC, and c|net.

Supreme Court rules in Google's favor in copyright dispute with Oracle

Supreme Court rules in Google's favor in copyright dispute with Oracle over Android software:

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Google against Oracle in a long-running copyright dispute over the software used in Android, the mobile operating system.

The court's decision was 6-2. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was not yet confirmed by the Senate when the case was argued in October, did not participate in the case.

The case concerned about 12,000 lines of code that Google used to build Android that were copied from the Java application programming interface developed by Sun Microsystems, which Oracle acquired in 2010. It was seen as a landmark dispute over what types of computer code are protected under American copyright law.

Oracle had claimed at points to be owed as much as $9 billion, while Google claimed that its use of the code was covered under the doctrine of fair use and therefore not subject to copyright liability. Android is the most popular mobile operating system in the world.

See also:
Supreme Court hands Google a victory in a multibillion-dollar case against Oracle

In addition to resolving a multibillion-dollar dispute between the tech titans, the ruling helps affirm a longstanding practice in software development. But the Court declined to weigh in on the broader question of whether APIs are copyrightable.

Justices wary of upending tech industry in Google v. Oracle Supreme Court fight

Several of the other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, suggested they were sympathetic to Oracle's copyright claims.

Still, they appeared reluctant to rule in Oracle's favor because of arguments made by leading computer scientists and Microsoft, in friend-of-the-court briefs, that doing so could upend the industry.

GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

Held: Google's copying of the Java SE API, which included only those lines of code that were needed to allow programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, was a fair use of that material as a matter of law. Pp. 11–36.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 06 2021, @03:42AM (5 children)

    That's not their decision to make. They have no legal authority granted them towards those ends.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @01:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @01:17PM (#1133847)

    It IS their decision to make when one court tries to overturn decades of established precedent by other courts in the land.

    If a law is indeed so ambiguous as to be read in two opposite ways, it is for the Supremes to fix the interpretation; and if judges can decide to read a law in an opposite way just because, the Supremes can too.

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 06 2021, @01:53PM (3 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 06 2021, @01:53PM (#1133865) Journal

    Why is it not the SCOTUS's decision to make?

    It IS their decision to interpret laws. Even throw out laws, either partially or in whole.

    Example: A state has a law criminalizing something consenting adults agree to do of their own free will in private causing no unwanted harm to anyone else. Police mistakenly break in to wrong apartment and discover two adults engaged in a violation of this law. SCOTUS recognized the law as unconstitutional.

    There can be other reasons SCOTUS could throw out a law. Even for something as simple as being unconstitutionally vague. "The town's queen can declare 'off with their head!' to any person in town whom the queen is presently displeased with."

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 06 2021, @02:17PM (1 child)

      Common practice is not law until it has been around long enough and universally enough to attain the status of common law. And courts do not have the authority to rule on common business practices, only law. Now they could say it has attained common law status and rule from that direction but that's not what they did.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 06 2021, @05:41PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 06 2021, @05:41PM (#1133940) Journal

        As you say, they definitely did not do that.

        Instead they simply took the path of least inductance and declared Google's use to be fair use.

        I can't argue with it. It is functionally necessary to exactly comply with an API in order to create a legal work-alike implementation. Like building third party ink cartridges that will work in a modern printer.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:34PM (#1133955)

      SCOTUS spends most of it's time deciding whether it has the authority to decide things.

      The liberals: When the law is vague, interpret the law in a way that makes sense.

      The conservatives: When the law is vague, refuse to read anything into it that is not in the plain text. If it is vague enough, declare the law unconstitutionally vague. Refuse to ever make a decision that rightfully belongs to congress. If congress wants to fix the law, it will.

      This decision is actually interesting because some of the conservative justices signed on for an interpretation that makes sense, but can't be found in the plain text of the statute. The statute says computer code is copyrightable. And it says that fair uses are allowed even of copyrightable things. But it never says that reimplementing an API is a fair use.

      If you are just now figuring out your judicial philosophy, now is a good time to ask yourself: Would you rather have a SCOTUS that uses it's discretion to try to do the right thing, or would you rather have a SCOTUS that refuses to overstep it's authority?