By: Melanie A. Bigos
In Google v. Oracle, after a decade-long argument, the Supreme Court will consider whether an application programming interface (“API”) is copyrightable. Oracle claimed that Google infringed upon its copyright on the programming language Java by allowing Android app developers to implement Java APIs. This decision will affect not only Google, who could owe Oracle billions of dollars in damages, but also the tech industry at large: if Oracle should win, and APIs are recognized as copyrightable, software interoperability will halt in favor of a much more competitive landscape. The Justices’ responses to oral arguments, which started October 7th, seem to suggest that the Court is unlikely to rule in Google’s favor – and if it does, the decision would be a narrow one. The Court’s forthcoming decision, expected by June 2021, is likely to crucially impact the future of software programming, having the potential to diminish the opportunities available to companies, catalyze major changes in the world of cloud computing, and introduce a flood of litigation regarding copyright infringement claims.
APIs are, in simplest terms, systems that allow programs to communicate with each other. They are the “glue” of complex software systems; they act as the baseline for constructing and integrating application software. To ensure software interoperability, programs are designed to conform with the API of another program, which serves to establish rules about communication between programs in order to ensure that the two programs can cooperate to perform specific tasks. Using API grants great flexibility and opportunity to application developers. For several years, many industry experts have objected to the patentability of interfaces, as they are so fundamental to software interoperability, and no other method competes with its efficiency or functionality.
In 2010, Oracle challenged this commonly accepted perspective by suing Google for copyright infringement after the latter used the former’s Java API to build the Android operating system. Google effectively wrote its own version of Java for Android, but it used the same essential characteristics, including names, functionality, and format. Oracle initially lost this suit in the federal district court, where Judge William Alsup acknowledged the danger in granting it control of “a utilitarian and functional set of symbols.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision in 2014, ruling that Oracle’s Java API is copyrightable.
Google then requested the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the Federal Court’s decision, which was denied. The case was remanded to the district court to assess whether Google was entitled to a “fair use” defense, which permits copying of material without permission from the owner, provided that such use was for a “transformative” purpose, such as commentary, criticism, or parody. After the trial court’s jury unanimously recognized this defense, Oracle appealed. The district court was reversed again in 2018, and Google filed another petition for the Supreme Court to review both Federal Court decisions. The Supreme Court then granted a writ of certiorari in November 2019 and began hearing oral arguments in October 2020.
There are several nuances to U.S. copyright and patent law that make legal battles such as Google v. Oracle difficult to navigate for courts and creatives alike. Typically, in the context of software development, patents protect the functional features of the software. Alternatively, copyright protections apply to the artistic elements of code, which means that others can reproduce features so long as it is independently written in code. The Copyright Act articulates that copyright protections cannot apply to any functional systems — therefore, protection will not extend to any “idea, procedure, process, system, [or] method of operation. . .” contained in the work. Differentiating the application of copyright and patent law is fundamental to understanding Google’s argument, which posited that considering the Java API as copyrightable would essentially equate to the application of patent-like rights through copyright law since the software is functional. The Federal Court, however, reasoned that the code featured in the Java API could have still executed the same functions, even if it was written in a different way. For this reason, Google’s copying of Java’s exact code, the Court argued, should be addressed in the context of “fair use.”
On October 7, the justices of the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides, commencing the latest step in what has been referred to as “the copyright case of the decade.” Several justices challenged both parties with hypothetical questions and allegories, comparing an API to a menu, a football team’s playbook, and a QWERTY keyboard, among others. Although the types and direction of questions asked of each respective side seem to suggest that a majority of justices are siding with Oracle, it is speculative to assume so. Counsel for both sides argued that the Court’s decision in favor of the other party will upend the software industry. However, based on the assumptions and traditions that programmers have observed for decades, this argument is mostly true for Google. Software companies have relied upon the opportunity to re-implement existing APIs into a new product, which encouraged and fostered interoperability. A ruling in favor of Oracle would introduce widespread copyright infringement litigation. It would also challenge programmers, prohibiting them from relying on existing API in development, a practice that is counter-productive in the world of cloud computing. Furthermore, a friend-of-the-court brief filed by a trio of software industry groups articulates how this decision would be especially harmful to smaller software start-ups who lack resources to re-implement.
Google v. Oracle exemplifies the palpable danger that exists when contemporary technologies are juxtaposed with the slower-moving field of law. The Court is forced to grapple with the correct classification for an API in the context of copyright — an unprecedented feat in the realm of technology law. The world of computer programming and its surrounding industry, which continues to grow exponentially, is sensitive to changes to the accepted norm. A decision in favor of Oracle would likely halt development for several programmers, yet a narrow decision for Google would result in widespread uncertainty. Regardless of the Court’s decision, Google v. Oracle will continue to be acknowledged as a critical and decisive moment at the intersection of technology and the law.
Student Bio: Melanie A. Bigos is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School and serves as a Staff Member on the Journal of High Technology Law. Melanie holds a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Boston College.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
