Issue: whether Oracle can claim a copyright on Java APIs and, if so, whether Google infringes these copyrights.
In order to allow developers to write their own programs for Android, Google’s implementation used the same names, organization, and functionality as the Java APIs.
May 2012, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California ruled that APIs are not subject to copyright: where “there is only one way to declare a given method functionality, [so that] everyone using that function must write that specific line of code in the same way,”
Oracle appealed to the ninth circuit. The circuit ruled in favor of Oracle in May 2014, finding that the Java APIs are copyrightable, but leaving open the possibility that Google might have a fair use defense.
Google filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review (on the issue of whether API is copyrightable) but failed. The case returned to the district court for trial.
In May 2016, a jury unanimously agreed that Google’s use of the Java APIs was fair use. Oracle appealed.
In March 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court. The Court rejected the jury’s verdict (after previously saying that the jury had to decide the case) and held that Google’s use was not fair use as a matter of law. Google appealed to the Supreme Court.
This time the SC granted the cert. Oral argument is expected in March 2020, and a decision by June.
Documents in Docket:
Supreme Court (2020)
Oracle Brief (February 12, 2020)
Google Opening Brief (January 6, 2020)
Amicus Briefs
In support of Respondent
- Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs (USIJ)
- American Conservative Union Foundation
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Association of American Publishers
- Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
- Committee for Justice
- Computer Science Professors (Dr. Spafford et al.)
- Consumers’ Research
- Copyright Alliance
- Copyright Thought Leaders (Tepp et al.)
- Digital Justice Foundation
- Dolby
- Former Copyright Office Register Ralph Oman
- Former Legislators
- Hudson Institute
- Interdisciplinary Research Team on Programmer Creativity
- Internet Accountability Project
- IP Professors (Aistars et al.)
- Mathworks
- Motion Picture Association
- News Media Alliance
- Professor and Former CONTU Member Arthur Miller
- Professors of Journalism and Media Law (Dr. Knobel. et. al.)
- Recording Artists (Helienne Lindvall, et al.)
- Recording Industry Association of America / National Music Publishers Association
- SAS
- Sun Executive Scott McNealy
- Synopsys
- Tech Executives (Joe Tucci and Paul Dacier)
- Ten Creators’ Rights Organizations
- The United States
- US Telecom
In support of Neither Party
In support of Petitioner
- Civ Pro, IP & Legal History Professors
- Glynn Lunney
- Michael Risch
- Center for Democracy and Technology, et al.
- Professors Peter S. Menell, et al.
- Copyright Scholars
- Rimini Street, Inc.
- The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation
- Computer & Communications Industry Association and Internet Association
- Developers Alliance
- Microsoft Corporation
- Auto Care Association and Static Control Components, Inc.
- Small, Medium, and Open Source Technology Organizations
- Empirical Legal Researchers
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Innovators, Startups, and Investors
- Seventy Two Intellectual Property Scholars
- Eighty Three Computer Scientists
- R Street Institute and Public Knowledge
- Engine Advocacy
- Python Software Foundation and Tidelift
- American Antitrust Institute
- Retail Litigation Center, Inc.
- The American Library Association, The Association Of Research Libraries, The Association Of College And Research Libraries, And The Software Preservation Network
- International Business Machines Corp. and Red Hat, Inc.
- Software and System Developers and Engineers for United States Government Agencies
- Software Freedom Law Center
Cert Petition (2019)
Solicitor General Brief (Sept. 27, 2019)
Google Reply Brief (April 10, 2019)
Oracle Response in Opposition (Mar. 27, 2019)
Google Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Feb. 25, 2019)
Amicus Briefs
In support of Petitioner
- Developers Alliance
- Eight Intellectual Property Scholars
- Microsoft
- R Street Institute and Public Knowledge
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Professors Peter Menell and David Nimmer
- Sixty Five Intellectual Property Scholars
- CCIA
- Seventy Eight Computer Scientists
- American Antitrust Institute
- Engine Advocacy
- Python Software Foundation and Tidelift
- Red Hat
- Software Innovators, Startups, and Investors
- Mozilla, et al
Federal Circuit (2018)
Google’s petition for rehearing en banc (May 29, 2018)
Federal Circuit Decision (March 27, 2018)
Amicus Briefs
In Support of Oracle
- BSA | The Software Alliance (Feb. 17, 2017)
- Competitive Carriers Association (Feb. 17, 2017)
- Computer Scientist Professors (Feb. 17, 2017)
- Copyright Alliance (Feb. 17, 2017)
- IP Scholars (Feb. 17, 2017)
- McNealy and Sutphin (Feb. 17, 2017)
- MPAA, IFTA, and SAG-AFTRA (Feb. 17, 2017)
- NY IP Law Association (Feb. 17, 2017)
- PACA, DMLA, GAG, NPPA, NANPA, ASMP, APA, and PPA (Feb. 17, 2017)
- Ralph Oman (Feb. 17, 2017)
- RIAA and AAP (Feb. 17, 2017)
In Support of Google
- American Antitrust Institute (May 30, 2017)
- Mozilla Corp. (May 30, 2017)
- Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge (May 30, 2017)
- Microsoft Corp., Red Hat, Inc., and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (May 30, 2017)
- IP Professors (May 30, 2017)
- Computer Scientists (May 30, 2017)
- Engine Advocacy, The App Developers Alliance, and Github Inc. (May 30, 2017)
- Computer & Communications Industry Association (May 26, 2017)
Federal Circuit (2014)
Federal Circuit Decision (May 9, 2014)
Remand
NDCA Order Denying Rule 50 Motions (June 8, 2016)
NDCA Jury Verdict (May 26, 2016)
