Oracle Corps vs. Google
Introduction
Oracle corps vs. Google, previously known as Oracle America, is a case in the Supreme Court of the United States. The case revolved around copyright laws and the identity of computer code (APIs) owned by Oracle Corps. The conflict is based on the utilization of section s of Java, application programming interface (APIs) by the Google Company. The Oracle, after realizing the Google actions initiated a lawsuit to incur the damages inflicted by the Google Company, which argued that their use of APIs was inside a fair use. This article aims to provide a more in-depth analysis of the Oracle corps vs. Google case, the main issues at stake, the cause of the petition, and the arguments of each party. The document will also examine different rulings by the District Courts, the Federal circuit court, and the reasons behind each verdict. Finally, the paper will give the progress of the case in the Supreme Court.
The development of Java was initiated in the year 1990. The programming language had integrated several libraries, essential and supplementary machines into the system, most of which provided the APIs, application programming interfaces to the system users. The main aim of developing the technology was to relive the burden of writing different versions of computer programs for dissimilar operating systems. Java programing platform was to allow programmers to use computer hardware without rewriting tasks. All applications were made possible by the use of a virtual machine. The Sun microsystems made programing language accessible to the public by early 1996 under licensing (O’Malley, 2). However, the company required that the utilization of the program had to be maintained under the stated standards. The Oracle Corporation bought the programing language from the Sun Microsystems in the year 2010 and had since developed most parts of the system. After owning APIs packages and Java SE copyrights, the Oracle Corporation provides three types of licenses to the public. The General public permit which allowed the licensee to implement and declaring the codes. The specification permitted to license the licensee to use APIs packages and declaring systems, but implementation code had to be written by the programmer. The third type of license was the Commercial license provided mainly to commercial businesses. The commercial license allowed business operators to customize and use all java codes in keeping secret codes and in retail items. Two factors contributed to Java popularity; first, the platform contained several prewritten programs, and therefore, programmers would use the platforms in creating other apps. Secondly, the platform enabled the designers to write programs that could be run on several computers. Another essential feature of the Java platform worth noting is that all applications had two types of code; the declaring and implementing codes. The declaring systems appeared like chapters or introductory sentences of the work, and it introduces the names of the prewritten work (Rosenkranz, 4).
On the other hand, the Android operating system was developed in the year 2003 by known scientists and bought The Google Company by 2005 to design smartphones. Android was a software platform majorly developed for mobile devices and is the main competitor for Java. Google has been developing the system after gaining its ownership. However, during the initial developments, Google desired to incorporate Java libraries into the Android system. Unfortunately, Google never met the desire due to the conditions placed by the Sun Company. The argued development partnership of the Sun and Google failed. Instead of gaining a Java license, Google decided to develop a similar version of the standard edition of Java language in its devices. Google developed the renowned Dalvik virtual machine with 168 APIs packages, of which 37 were from Java (O’Malley, 4). Google, after that, released the 2007 Android version to the public. Hearing such developments, the Oracle Corporation was annoyed and initiated a suit against Google in the District Court in Northern District, California. The Oracle Corporation accuses Google of infringing the copyright rights. Oracle wanted Google to be stopped from using the infringed stuff plus monetary damages.
The case was presented to Judges, O’Malley, Taranto and Plager, circuit judges on the United States Northern California District Court (O’Malley, 1).
From the tribunal testimonies, the court found out that the previous owner of Java, Sun Corps, licensed Java micro Edition, which was used in mobile devices and did not develop any Java mobile platform. However, Oracle Cops authorized Java ME featured in smartphones and mobiles (O’Malley, 3).
The court also found that versions 37 APIs packages were similar to some versions of Android software; however, neither the parties, not the district court specified versions appearing in the programs. In the court, the Oracle Corps was worried about the Android phones with copies of APIs packages that had dominated the United States market. It was notified that Google had provided the Android platform freely to smartphone producers and had been receiving lots of revenue when customers use Android phones.
It was undisputed that Oracle Corps freely opened the Java programming language for everyone to use if not for the three licensed APIs packages. It is also unquestioned that Google copied 37 Java APIs packages owned by the Oracle Corps instead of using Java language to develop its AIPs packages. The overall question the district court was whether the 37 Oracle APIs were needed copyright protection. The district court ruled in favor of Google stating arguing that the copied APIs packages are not entitled to copyright protection, and therefore, Android did not infringe Oracle copyrights. In addition to that, the District Court confirmed that fair use had protected the re-implementation of the 37Java APIs packages.
The district verdict was based on the Ninth Circuit court proceedings in ruling that Java APIs codes owned by Oracle Corps are no protected by 17 Unites Stated Code 102 (b). The District Court further outlined that Java AIPs are patent-eligible but cannot be protected by copyright. According to District Court, the whole world is obligated to use the same specifications irrespective of the Java specification methods as long as implementation of the codes is dissimilar. Google, on the other hand, agreed the Oracle’s implementation codes might be entitled to protection by copyright but not declaring systems. Google insisted that the company spent almost two and a half years composing the implementation codes and, therefore, were not copyrighted (O’Malley, 10). The court also found out that the declaring codes owned by the Oracle Corps also had short phrases that were not copyrightable. It may be correct that short phrases, for example, titles, names identified by the district court, are not entitled to copyright protection. This argument may be wrong to some extent; the short phases were generated due to the creativity of Oracle corps programmers. The arrangements, structure, and selection of codes were produced out of creativity. It is also important to point out; the district court focused on individual code lines; however, Oracle wanted copyright protection on all owed codes, not a specific phrase. Therefore, it can be concluded that the District Court erred by misapplying short phrase doctrine to find that declaring systems are not copyrightable (O’Malley, 13).
The decision by the district court showed several other weaknesses; first, the court was not able to distinguish between what is copyrightable and what is not. The district court also error, by considering the Google claim of fair use of the 37 APIs packages owned by the Oracle Corps. However, it essential to note that Google fair use of the Java packages was not supported by any sufficient records, meaning the 37 AIPs packages are entitled to copyright protection. On the other hand, the court used the merger doctrine in the advantageous options to Google.
According to Oracle Corps, the District Court erred by declaring the source codes are unprotectable under merger doctrine. The merger doctrine is a law used in court cases in instances where the ways of expressing an idea are limited (O’Malley, 9). According to the merger doctrine, a court cannot protect copyrighted writings from infringement if the present conception can not be expressed in any other way. Oracle Corps then proceeded to file a petition in the Federal Circuit court against Google. During the appeal, Oracle reported District court for misapplication of the merger doctrine. Similarly, the court analysis never focused on the available option. The case hearing was held on December 4, 2013, with the judgment on May 9, 2014.
The first view of the case by the Federal Circuit Court was based on 17 U.S C 102(b) which provided that copyright protection not to be extended to systems, process, operation methods, procedures, concept, discovery in disregard of the form it is explained in a protected work (Samuelson, 2). After hearing the petition, the Federal Circuit Court ignored all the facts district court ruling was based on. Federal Circuit court maintained that the organization, structure, and declaring codes are entitled to copyright protection after reversal of the District court decisions. Additionally, the court claimed that computer copyright protection extends to both the organization and structure of the codes apart from the source code (Rosenkraaanz, 10). It was undisputed that Google Company copied several lines of Oracle’s declaring systems. Google replicated the overall SSO, structure, sequence, and organization of 37Java APIs packages as per the Court of Appeals found. Additionally, the court found that Google’s Android had a non-stop market impact on Oracle’s products.
With all these findings, the Federal Circuit Court turned down Google’s argument that the expression of line codes are unprotectable. Google also complained that section 102(b) of the law does not outline the copyright protection of organization and structure of source codes; however, the argument was stated to lack merit (Rosenkrans, 10). The case was represented to the district courts, for another trial to determine whether Google’s claim of fair use was justifiable under the Merger Doctrine of fair use. The Appeal Court claimed that the ruling had not presented sufficient facts related to the appropriate use of Java APIs packages by Google. The second District court came out the same way as the first verdict and was overruled by the Court of Appeal.
Google went further to petition for certiorari. During the second hearing, the court found that Google used the copied materials for the same purpose, which greatly affected Oracle’s potential market. In the context of the quantity copied by Google, Oracle was favored because the codes were a valuable part of the Java program. Another finding which went in favor of Google was that no alteration was made on the content of copywriting material. The second hearing of the Federal Circuit court concluded that as a matter of law, copying is not fair use. Therefore, Google’s use of Oracle’s 37 Java application program interface was unlawful. The decision was made according to the 17 United States Code section 107 (Rosenkranz, 11).
The Federal Circuit court decision was identified to have several mistakes and flaws in the analysis of Oracle Corp vs. Google case. Records by Samuelson indicated that there were faults in the assessment of SSO, structure, sequence, and organization of computer programs safeguarded by copyright laws (3). The author illustrates that, since the confirmation of SSO protection by copyright laws, several courts have disputed the idea as it may be imprecise and deception to tech software copyright cases. District Court ruling was based on both Ninth Circuit decisions and consideration of section 102(b) of the law. However, Federal Circuit Court misinterpreted proceedings from Ninth Circuits and ignored District court finding that computer programs are unprotectable as provided by the law. The federal court insisted Google’s claim of fair use is not justifiable. Similarly, it does not create a distinction between protected and unprotected programs (3). As evidence in the United States law, when program structures such as APIs are designed with the aim of effectively achieving outlined technical goals, it may not require to be protected by copyright laws. Consequently, The Federal Circuit Court failed to understand the application of Merger doctrines in the copyright verdicts. According to the Federal Circuit court argument, the copyright should be protected as long as the Oracle programmers displayed creativity in the design of the APIs. Nevertheless, several circuit laws indicate the application of Merger doctrine in the instances where designers are constrained by the incorporation of interface designs in the previous programs. The legislation permits the programmers to reapply interface features in independent codes. These allow the reuse of the element by the programmers. According to the District Courts’ findings, APIs are essential building blocks in the development of programs (Samuelson, 4). Federal Circuit Court also erred in the ruling by rejecting precedent cases and the District court application of section 102(b).
Lastly, the Federal Circuit Court did not consider the Ninth Circuit resolutions that provided that computer programs are not guarded by copyright laws since the interface policies are not outlined in 17 United States Code 102(b). Ninth Circuits also stated that to obtain monopoly power over program interface policies, the holder must meet the stringent standards provided by Patent laws. Sega Enters limited vs. Accolade case, for instance, indicated that copying a similar code line cannot outline as infringement activities. A similar situation, Computer Associates International abbreviated as Inc. vs. Altai of 1992 in the Ninth Circuit Court, also overthrown the copyright protection of functional demands for gaining interoperability (Samuelson, 6). Reports by Samuelson indicate that the Federal Circuit Court verdict on Oracle Cops vs. Google in consideration of the earlier conclusions showed a split in circuits.
Even with the Federal Circuit Court ruling in favor of Oracle Corps, Google argued that the court did not consider the fair use in the functional nature of the duplicated Java APIs codes owned by Oracle Corps. In the view of Google Company, Federal Circuit Court resolutions on the case show MIS implementation of the fair use doctrine.
Google then petition the case to the Supreme Court. Google wanted to challenge the two final verdicts of the Federal circuit court in favor of Oracle Corps. The main issue presented in the Supreme Court is whether the Java APIs needed copyright protection since most computer programs are entitled to copyright protection as literary works. The Supreme Court viewed the claims according to the Merger Doctrines. On the same note, the case was viewed according to the Federal Circuit findings, which stated that the APIs packages could be organized and written differently to serve the same function. These meant that the Java packages were copyrightable due to the creativity. The other question in the Supreme Court was whether Google’s use of declaration codes demonstrated fair use of the copyrighted codes. The determination of the fair use may be dependent on some of the factors; for instance, the sustainability of the copyrighted portions, the character and the purpose of the use of Java APIs, the essence of the copyrighted pieces, and the value of copyrights and its effect on the potential market. Even though the Federal Circuit Court found no Java APIs fair use as claimed by Google, The Supreme Court may come with a different decision.
The court uplifting the Federal Circuit court decision would mean that; software developers will either use declaration codes that do not depend on Java APIs packages or gain licenses for using Java implementing and declaration code through payment. Such decisions may change the technology industry as the total cost of soft wares are expected to increase significantly to pay for either creation of the new APIs for several platforms or pay Oracle Corps licensing fee.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court reverser the Federal Circuit court decision, several software developers are entitled to lose the protection of their software. Such actions may deteriorate inventions and innovations in the tech industry, leading to less software and unfair competition.
In conclusion, Oracle Corps vs. Google is one of the controversial cases in the technology industry. The case started in the District court then to the Federal Circuit court and now in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. There are divided opinions on the validity of the previous verdicts, and the Supreme Court is expected to come out with the best and the final judgment. The public especially, the technology industry, is likely to be affected in one way or another. The Supreme Court will decide on the future of the technology industry. Ruling in favor of any party, either Google or Oracle corps, will have either positive or negative effects on the tech industry as a whole. The case was expected to be heard by March 2020, but due to COVID-19, the verdict was pushed forward. The public is prepared on the Supreme Court judgment when everything goes well.
References
Samuelson, Pamela. “Three Fundamental Flaws in CAFC’s Oracle v. Google Decision.” European Intellectual Property Review, October (2015).
Samuelson, Pamela. “Google, Inc. v. Oracle America, Inc., United States Supreme Court No. 14-410, Brief of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Professors in Support of Grant of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” Oracle America, Inc., United States Supreme Court 14-410 (2014).
O’Malley, J. (2014). ORACLE AMERICA, INC. v. GOOGLE INC. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Decided: May 9, 2014. 16 Before O’Malley. Webcache.googleusercontent.com.
Rosenkranz, J. (2019). Supreme Court of the United States. Webcache.googleusercontent.com.