As a victory for innovation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Google’s use of certain Java application programming interfaces (APIs) was legal and fair use. In the process, the court overturned the previous decision of the Federal Circuit and recognized that copyright can only promote innovation and creativity when it provides breathing space for those who build on existing results. This decision provides more legal certainty for the common practice of software developers using, reusing, and re-implementing software interfaces written by others, which is the basis for most of the Internet and personal computing technologies we use every day. Ten-year lawsuit: Oracle claims to own the copyright of the Java API-mainly the name and format of calling computer functions-and claims that Google has infringed the copyright by using (reimplementing) certain Java APIs in the Android operating system. When creating Android, Google wrote its own set of basic functions similar to Java (its own implementation code). But in order to allow developers to write their own programs for Android, Google uses certain specifications of the Java API (sometimes called “declaration code”). The API provides a common language for programs to communicate with each other. They also allow programmers to operate using a familiar interface, even on competing platforms. Announcing that they are protected by copyright will touch the core of innovation and cooperation. EFF submitted a large number of amicus curiae summaries in this case, explaining why APIs should not be protected by copyright, and why in any case, using them in Google’s way does not constitute infringement. As we explained before, the opinions of these two Federal Circuit courts are a disaster for computer software innovation. Its first decision-API is entitled to copyright protection-runs counter to the views of most other courts and the long-held expectations of computer scientists. In fact, excluding APIs from copyright protection is essential to the development of modern computers and the Internet. Then the second decision made things worse. The first opinion of the Federal Circuit at least held that the jury should decide whether Google’s use of the Java API was fair, and in fact the jury did just that. However, Oracle appealed again. In 2018, the same three Federal Circuit judges overturned the verdict of the jury, arguing that Google did not engage in fair use in the law. Fortunately, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. In the 6-2 decision, Judge Breyer explained why Google’s use of the Java API is legally fair. First, the court discussed some of the basic principles of the fair use principle, writing that fair use “allows the court to avoid strict application of copyright laws, because it sometimes stifles the creativity that the law aims to cultivate.” In addition, the court stated:
“Fair use” can play an important role in determining the legal scope of the copyright of a computer program… It can help distinguish between technologies. It can distinguish between the expressive and functional features of computer code, where these features are mixed. It can focus on the production Copyright-protected materials provide incentives for legitimate needs, while examining the extent to which further protection causes irrelevant or illegal damage in other markets or other product development.”
In doing so, the decision emphasized the true purpose of copyright: to stimulate innovation and creativity. When the copyright is contrary, fair use provides an important safety valve. Judge Breyer then turned to specific fair use statutory factors. For a functional software copyright case, he first discussed the nature of copyright works. The Java API is a “user interface” that allows users (here, developers of Android applications) to “manipulate and control” computer programs that perform tasks. The court observed that the declaration code of the Java API is different from other types of copyrighted computer code-it is “inseparably combined” and has functions that are not protected by copyright, such as the computer task system and its organization and specific programming Use of commands (Java “method invocation”). As the court pointed out:
Unlike many other programs, its value comes to a large extent from those who do not own the copyright, that is, computer programmers, who invest their time and energy to learn the value of the API system. Unlike many other programs, its value lies in its efforts to encourage programmers to learn and use the system so that they will use (and continue to use) implementations related to Sun that Google has not copied.
Therefore, since it is stated that the code is “further away from the core of copyright than most computer programs (such as implementation code),” this factor is conducive to fair use. Judge Breyer then discussed the purpose and characteristics of the use. Here, the opinion clarifies when the use of computer software is “transformative”, creating new things rather than simply replacing the original ones. Although Google “precisely” copied part of the Java API, Google did so to create products that meet new purposes and provide programmers with “extremely creative and innovative tools” for smartphone development. This use is “consistent with creative’progress’ as the basic constitutional goal of copyright itself.” The court discussed “the various ways in which the reimplementation of the interface can facilitate the development of computer programs”, such as allowing different programs to communicate with each other and allowing programmers Continue to use the skills they have acquired. The jury also heard that API reuse is a common industry practice. Therefore, the opinion concluded that the “purpose and nature” of Google’s copying is transformative, so the first factor is conducive to fair use. Next, the court considered the third fair use factor, which is the quantity and materiality of the used part. In this case, in fact, the 11,500 lines of declaration code used by Google is less than 1% of the total number of Java SE programs. Even the declarative code used by Google is to allow programmers to use their knowledge and experience in the Java API to write new programs for Android smartphones. Since the number of copies is “related” to effective and transformative purposes, “substantial” factors are conducive to fair use. Finally, several reasons led Judge Breyer to conclude that the market effect of the fourth factor is in favor of Google. Independent of the launch of Android in the market, Sun has no ability to build a viable smartphone. Any source of Sun revenue loss is the result of a third party (programmer) investing in learning and using Java. Therefore, “In view of the programmer’s investment in learning the Sun Java API, allowing Oracle’s copyright to be executed here would run the risk of harming the public. Considering the cost and difficulty of producing alternative APIs that are similarly attractive to programmers, it’s allowed here Enforcement will make the declarative code of the Sun Java API a lock that restricts the future creativity of new programs.” This “lock” interferes with the basic goal of copyright. The court concluded that “Google has reimplemented the user interface and only adopted what is needed to allow users to use their accumulated talents for new and transformative programs. Google’s copy of the Sun Java API is legally reasonable for these materials. Use.” The Supreme Court left the question of whether the computer software’s functions are copyrighted for one day. Nevertheless, we are pleased that the court recognizes the overall importance of fair use in software cases and the public interest in allowing programmers, developers, and other users to continue to use their acquired software interface knowledge and experience in subsequent platforms.
Google v. Oracle is the name of the decision of the US Supreme Court in the long-running Oracle v. Google copyright case. In 2010, Oracle sued Google for alleged infringement of Oracle’s copyright in the Java Application Programming Interface (Java API). Google won twice in the court of first instance, but…
The huge record companies, their associations, and their lobbyists have succeeded in getting some members of the U.S. House of Representatives to pressure Twitter to pay the money it does not owe, and to pay users with labels that have no right to claim against their interests. This is an…
The Attorney General (AG) of the European Court of Justice today missed the opportunity to fully protect Internet users from censorship through automatic filtering and found that Article 17 of the catastrophic EU Copyright Directive did not violate Europeans’ right to freedom of speech. The good news is…
Woodland, California — The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued the California Peace Officials Standards and Training Board (POST) for materials showing how police received training in the use of force after the organization cited third-party copyright interests to illegally detain them from public. The lawsuit was filed based on California’s public records…
Phoenix, Arizona — The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today filed a lawsuit against Proctorio Inc. on behalf of college student Erik Johnson, seeking to determine that he did not infringe the company’s copyright when linking to excerpts of its software code in a tweet criticizing software manufacturers . Proctorio, the developer of…
San Francisco-On Tuesday, April 20 and Wednesday, April 21, experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on combating copyright abuse will testify at a virtual hearing held by the Copyright Office to support the review of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA) exemption so those who have bought digital equipment-from cameras and…
Rock climbers have a tradition of sharing “beta” (useful information about the route) with other climbers. In this popular sport, providing a beta version is both useful and a form of community building. Given the strong tradition of sharing, we were disappointed to learn that the owner of the important community website MountainProject.com is…
Last week was the deadline for commenting on the draft of the so-called “Digital Copyright Law,” which will fundamentally change the way online creativity works. We asked creators to add their voices to many groups opposed to the draft, and you did it. In the end, more than 900 of you…
The controversial Article 17 (former Article 13) of the “Copyright Directive” is in full swing into the implementation of national laws, and the rights and freedoms of users are not optimistic. Several EU countries failed to put forward a balanced copyright implementation proposal, ignoring EFF’s concerns,…
Post time: Oct-28-2021
