GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC.: 11,5K lines of code US$8.8 billion

It is all sides remarkable story has been started in 2005 when Google LLC, driven by the best of intentions, bought the Android and decided to create a new software platform for mobile devices. For this purpose, Google decided to get a licensing of the Java libraries for use in Android. Sun asked not too big sum between US$30-50 million but simultaneously counted on the shared control of Android. It wasn't the American Dream Deal as Google had seen it, and they didn't complete it. Google's side states that they wanted to get more control of this so-called open-source language, which would allow third parties to get more advantage of its code. Oracle, who bought Sun in April 2009 for US$7.4 billion and completed the acquisition in January 2010, states from the name of the Sun, about refusing because of the fears that Google's version of Java will turn transformed it into a brand new language which, in turn, will prevent it being interoperable with other versions. Obviously, this idea went absolutely against the concept "write once run anywhere" of the Java language. Considering that the OpenJDK implementation offered by Sun was not as good and convenient as the Java Standard Edition, Google decided to bypass the license restriction and use 37 API calls and around 11,500 lines of code from the Java SE Application Programming Interface (API). Despite the fact that Google states it was done to ensure interoperability with the Java Standard Edition for other programmers, it wasn't denied that it had used this code for commercial reasons to rapidly complete Android and avoid the "drudgery" of recreating the code. Never the less these 11.5K lines of the code became a stumbling block and a reason for legal proceedings. The trial began in 2010. Oracle America, INC claimed copyright infringement and required US$8.8 billion compensation.

The sue was stated in 2010 and decided on April 5, 2021, when the Supreme court ended this long-play case. It agrees that 11.5K lines of the code are the subject of the copyright and belong to the Oracle; however, it allows a user to copy portions of someone else's work without payment or permission if it is the fair user. The Supreme Court considers Google LLC the fair user, and the fair use of the subject of the copyrights can be a defense to copyright infringement. The Supreme Court claims that The underlying purpose of copyright is to incentivize innovation and creativity. There is a very simple four parameters test that courts usually use to determine fair use or not:

• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the purpose and character of the use;
• the volume and substantiality of the share taken;
• the impact of the fact of using on the defined market.

After considering all four of the above factors, the Supreme Court concluded that Google's use of 11,5K lines of code is legitimate. The court concluded that the subject of the copyright was, by its nature, the user interface that does not perform tasks and gives users the ability to manipulate and control the programs that do perform tasks. Considering this fact, the Supreme Court declared that Google incorporated "only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work." The Supreme Court understands that using the subject of the copyright in creating an entirely new platform on a new device is considered transformative, which is fully compliant with the second feature of fair use. The commercial goals in consideration of this claim were not played a significant role. The third point was also on Google's side. The 11,5K of code was less than 1% of the total of the relevant Java program. The reason why Google copied the ASI code was the fact that programmers were familiar with the interface, nothing more. At least the Supreme Court checked the global effect on the market thoroughly. Despite the reality that the Java-based mobile phone business entered a deadly dive, the Android has been recognized as a qualitatively different product, which cannot be compared to the Java-based mobile phone generation.

This story leads us to the following conclusions:

• if you're the copyright owner, it is not an undeniable fact that you can count on the billion of compensation even you're the titan of industry, and the fact of the use is documented confirmed;
• the courts are slowly turning to use common sense than the letter of the law only, and if you are even, as Sting sings, "the little alien in New York," you can count on victory if you'll not be too audacious in borrowing code from industry giants;
• the fair use concept strengthens its position, and even significant commercialization of the project is not an obstacle for fair use.