Supreme Court releases Opinion on GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC

14 thoughts on “Supreme Court releases Opinion on GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC”

1. This is a BFD. I think I like it.

   But it changed some things. I think it means that there will be more of an emphasis on Trade Secrets… and if I game that out in my head, that means that there’s going to be a *LOT* more emphasis on Non-Competes.

   In the short term, however, I think that this just loosened a lot of stuff that was previously bound.Report

   1. This is, I think, simply reinforcement of a principle established in the 1980s and 1990s UNIX cases: you can’t copyright the names and types of an API that is publicly disclosed (ie, the header files). IIRC, in this case Google built a tool that compiled standard Java into byte code for a different virtual machine. They reimplemented much of the Java standard libraries, using the same names and typing, so that people could use their old source code in the new environment. Oracle has never accused them of copying the code behind the API, acknowledging that was done using a proper clean-room process.Report

      1. So it’s just hammering down something that was already the case but there was uncertainty?

         So all that happened was uncertainty was removed?

         That’s less of a big deal… but I think that that also means that stuff that was deliberately moving slowly can now deliberately speed up. A little.Report

         1. I agree with and endorse what Michael is saying. This is more back to Business As Usual in the industry. That Oracle would even claim this as a violation seemed really off the rails. Of course, the case has disrupted everything for its duration.Report

            1. It apparently applies to *ALL* APIs.

               Is that how it was before?

               Wow–SCOTUS doesn't just rule in favor of Google in @googlevoracle, but says that API reimplementation is fair use *as a matter of law*, meaning that the decision applies to all APIs pic.twitter.com/AwRBGtZ5Pp

               — Charles Duan (@charles_duan) April 5, 2021

               Report

               1. I believe that the previous cases were pretty clear-cut. I have seen claims that an actual example used by the appeals court said that

                  public static int max(int x, int y);

                  could be copyrighted and require licensing, although I haven’t gone back and verified that. At least one way of interpreting any strong statements in the SCOTUS opinion is a “Don’t make this mistake again!” message to the DC Circuit Court.Report

      2. I saw a fair number of people who thought that Oracle’s case was an obvious loser, and thus wondered what was motivating them. I guess we should take such opinions with a grain of salt, because who can really predict what a court will decide. I suppose some very knowledgeable lawyers can, in some cases. But how can I, a layperson, distinguish a knowledgeable lawyer from an agenda driven hack?

         In any case, I find the statement plausible, particularly in hindsight, so what was motivating Oracle? That said, if someone suggested that Oracle was motivated by pure naked evil, I wouldn’t discount them.

         Anyway, I’m pleased by this, and not just from a self-interested {my employer was involved} perspective. Software copyrights and patents are a social cancer.Report

         1. Larry Ellison has a highly competitive personality, and probably thought, “This has never been tested in court, so I’m gonna take my shot”. Helping his case, though not much, was that a set of header files were literally copied by Google, rather than retyped/reordered.Report

            1. That’s what I figure. “Let’s sue Google for $10B on the off chance that they’ll settle, or we can get a different decision. It’s a tech case, which always seems to confuse the SCOTUS.”Report

               1. Good thing Beyer was eating his Wheaties that morning.Report

         2. What usually motivates Oracle: greed, malevolence, and dreams of world domination.Report

      3. Of course I got the legal details wrong. You can copyright header files, but copying them for compatibility purposes falls under fair use.Report

2. heyo pic.twitter.com/NKirq7eRZN

   — Manish (@ManishEarth) April 5, 2021

   Report

3. No surprise that the two on the wrong side were Thomas and Alito.Report

Comments are closed.