Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. was a legal case within the
United States related to the nature of computer code and copyright Google LLC v. Oracle
law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming America, Inc.
language's application programming interfaces (APIs), which are
owned by Oracle (through subsidiary, Oracle America, Inc.,
originating from Sun Microsystems), within early versions of the
Android operating system by Google. Google has admitted to using
the APIs, and has since transitioned Android to a copyright-
unburdened engine, but argued their original use of the APIs was
within fair use. Supreme Court of the United
States
Oracle initiated the suit arguing that the APIs were copyrightable, Argued October 7, 2020
seeking US$8.8 billion in damages from Google's sales and licensing Decided April 5, 2021
of the earlier infringing versions of Android. While two District Full case Google LLC v. Oracle
Court-level jury trials found in favor of Google, the Federal Circuit name America, Inc.
court reversed both decisions, asserting APIs are copyrightable and Docket 18-956 (https://www.sup
Google's use does not fall under fair use. Google successfully no. remecourt.gov/docket/d
petitioned to the Supreme Court to hear the case in the 2019 term, ocketfiles/html/public/18-
focusing on the copyrightability of APIs and subsequent fair use; the 956.html)
case was delayed to the 2020 term due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Citations 593 U.S. ___ (more)
In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–2 decision that
Google's use of the Java APIs fell within the four factors of fair use, Case history
bypassing the question on the copyrightability of the APIs. The Prior
Oracle Am., Inc. v.
decision reversed the Federal Circuit ruling and remanded the case for
Google Inc., 872 F.
further review. Supp. 2d 974 (http
s://www.leagle.com/d
The case has been of significant interest within the tech and software
ecision/infdco20120
industries, as numerous computer programs and software libraries, 601k39) (N.D. Cal.
particularly in open source, are developed by recreating the 2012); reversed and
functionality of APIs from commercial or competing products to aid remanded, 750 F.3d
developers in interoperability between different systems or platforms. 1339 (https://scholar.
google.com/scholar_
case?case=1519709
2051369647665)
Contents (Fed. Cir. 2014);
cert. denied, 135 S.
Background
Ct. 2887 (2015)
First phase: API copyrightability and patents Oracle Am., Inc. v.
First District Court trial Google Inc., No.
First appellate ruling 3:10-cv-03561 (http
s://www.courtlistener.
Second phase: fair use
com/docket/417753
Second District Court trial 2/2070/oracle-ameri
Second appellate ruling ca-inc-v-google-
inc/), 2016 WL
Supreme Court
5393938 (Sept. 27,
Impact 2016); reversed, 886
See also F.3d 1179 (https://sc
References holar.google.com/sc
holar_case?case=10
External links 7451649356761587
04) (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Questions presented
Background
Whether copyright protection
Java was originally developed at Sun Microsystems starting in extends to a software interface.
December 1990.[1] It included a new programming language, a virtual Whether, as the jury found,
machine, and a set of libraries for use with the language.[2] These petitioner's use of a software
libraries are documented for programmers via application interface in the context of
programming interfaces (APIs), which tell programmers what creating a new computer program
information to provide to library functions and what results to expect constitutes fair use.
back, eliminating any need for the programmer to know how the Holding
library they are using does what it does. These libraries together Google’s copying of the Java SE
provide the "Java virtual machine" which programmers write API, which included only those lines
programs to use (run upon). The common way in which a common of code that were needed to allow
set of libraries are used across all "Java virtual machines" allows for programmers to put their accrued
interoperability, or as marketed by Sun, "Write once, run anywhere"; talents to work in a new and
a programmer need only create one version of their software which, transformative program, was a fair
because of the single group of APIs common to all Java virtual use of that material as a matter of
machines, can thus be run on any computing platform that supports law.
Java. Court membership
Chief Justice
The Java language was released to the public in 1995, under the Sun
John Roberts
Community Source License, making the source code freely available
but requiring that products using the code were maintained to the Java Associate Justices
standard, and that any commercial derivative works were licensed by Clarence Thomas · Stephen
Breyer
Sun.[3][4] While anyone could program in the language itself, Sun
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
maintained the Java Platform, Standard Edition and Mobile Edition Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
libraries, provided to users as pre-compiled Java bytecode, and their Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney
respective APIs, as well as the Technology Compatibility Kits Barrett
(TCKs) that tested an implementation against the Java standard.[5]
Case opinions
Over 2006 and 2007, due to pressure from developers, Sun changed
the license of the various Java packages to use the GNU General Majority Breyer, joined by
Public License with a "classpath exception", allowing developers the Roberts, Sotomayor,
access necessary to make derivative works and the ability to release Kagan, Gorsuch,
Kavanaugh
applications under a different license. This led to the OpenJDK (Open
Java Development Kit), first released in 2007. Sun retained strong Dissent Thomas, joined by Alito
control over the language and standards itself, licensing the necessary Barrett took no part in the
elements like TCKs for commercial users.[4] At this time, Sun's consideration or decision of the
business model changed to focusing on licensing of the Java platform case.
to embedded devices, particularly mobile phones, and had already
made licensing deals with Nokia, Motorola, and Research In Motion.[6]

Android, Inc. was founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White to develop a
mobile phone platform.[7][8] Google purchased Android in 2005 and continued developing the Android
operating system.[8] During the development of Android, Google wanted to incorporate the Java Standard
Edition (JavaSE) libraries. Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt had approached Sun's president
Jonathan I. Schwartz about licensing the Java libraries for use in Android. Sun offered a licensing deal of
between US$30 and 50 million. Schmidt said Google would have paid for that license, but they were
concerned that Sun had also requested some shared control of Android along with the fee.[9][10][11] Google
states that they wanted more control in order to open source the language and allow third parties to take better
advantage of its code;[9] Oracle states that Sun refused because Google's intention was essentially to fork Java
to a Google version of the language, and to prevent it being inter-operable with other versions, an idea which
was "anathema" to the "write once run anywhere" basis of the language.[12] Because of these differences of
view, the negotiations failed to reach a deal and Sun refused Google a license for Java.[12]

At this point in time, the OpenJDK implementation offered by Sun was not as mature or complete as the Java
Standard Edition.[13] Instead of licensing Java, Google chose to develop a cleanroom version of the Java
Standard Edition libraries, developing the libraries from a completely fresh start without any access to Sun's
code. This became the engine behind Android's Dalvik virtual machine, a core part of the new system. Part of
the virtual machine included 37 API calls and around 11,500 lines of code deemed central to Java, which were
taken from Apache Harmony, an open-source cleanroom Java implementation developed by the Apache
Software Foundation (ASF). Prior to this, the ASF had tried to obtain necessary licenses from Sun to support
the Apache Harmony project as to call it an official Java implementation, but could not, in part due to
incompatible licensing with Java's GNU General Public License and ASF's Apache License, nor could it gain
access to the Java TCKs to validate the Harmony project against Sun's implementation.[14][15] Though Google
stated they used this code to ensure interoperability with the Java Standard Edition for other programmers,[5]
during the second appeal hearing, Google stated that it had used this code for commercial reasons to rapidly
complete Android and to avoid the "drudgery" of recreating the code.[12] ASF ceased maintaining the Apache
Harmony in 2011, leading Google to take over maintenance of these libraries.[13]

Google released a beta of the Android platform on November 5, 2007 then, one week later, the software
development kit (SDK) which they noted included some Java technologies.[16][17][18] Sun's president
Schwartz congratulated Google the same day, saying they had "strapped another set of rockets to the
community's momentum – and to the vision defining opportunity across our (and other) planets."[19] During
the trial, Schwartz said that at that time of Android's release, despite knowing Google may have bypassed their
licensing requirements, "We decided to grit our teeth and support it so anyone supporting it would see us as
part of the value chain".[6]

Oracle announced it would purchase Sun in April 2009 for US$7.4 billion, and completed the acquisition in
January 2010.[20] Besides allowing them to enter the hardware business, Oracle's CEO Larry Ellison called
the Java language "the single most important software asset we have ever acquired".[21] Oracle continued to
develop Java and pursue licensing opportunities following its acquisition of Sun.

First phase: API copyrightability and patents

The first phase of the case lasted from 2010 to 2015. Oracle successfully established that APIs are
copyrightable, but their claims of patent infringement were rejected. Google petitioned the Supreme Court in
October 2014 to review the case, but this was denied. A second petition by Google in January 2019 included
the judgment that APIs are copyrightable. The Supreme Court agreed to review this part of the judgment in
November 2019.

First District Court trial

On August 13, 2010, Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement in the District Court for the
Northern District of California. Oracle asserted Google was aware that they had developed Android without a
Java license and copied its APIs, and that Google therefore infringed Oracle's copyright. Oracle also cited
seven prior patents related to the Java technology created by Sun and now owned by Oracle that Google
should have been aware of as they had hired former Sun developers that worked on Java. Oracle sought both
monetary damages and an injunction to stop Google from using the allegedly infringing materials.[22][23]
The case was assigned to Judge William Alsup, who split the case into three phases:
copyright, patent, and damages.

The copyright phase started on April 16, 2012, and consisted of several distinct claims
of infringement: a nine-line rangeCheck function, several test files, the structure,
sequence and organization (SSO) of the Java (API), and the API documentation.

Oracle alleged infringement of 37 separate Java APIs which had derived from the
Apache Harmony project.[10] After two weeks of testimony, the jury found on May 7,
2012, that Google had infringed on the copyright related to the code, SSO, and
documentation of the APIs as well as the rangeCheck function, but were deadlocked Judge William
on whether these uses fell within fair use. The jury also found that Google had Alsup, who
sufficient reason to believe based on Sun's and Oracle's conduct that they did not need presided over both
to license Java from Sun or Oracle, but did not rely on this when developing trials at the District
[24] Court level
Android. Oracle requested a judgement as a matter of law (JMOL) that the case
dismiss any fair use defense since the jury was split, as well as to overturn the jury's
decision on eight security-related files that they had reviewed and found non-
infringing but which Google had stated they copied verbatim; Alsup concurred. Google asked for a similar
JMOL related to rangeCheck, but Alsup denied this request.[25]

The patent phase began on May 7, 2012, with the same jury.[26] By the time of trial, Oracle's patent case
comprised claims from two patents, 6,061,520 (Method and system for performing static initialization),[27] and
RE38104 (Method and apparatus for resolving data references in generated code).[28] Google pursued a non-
infringement defense. For the 6061520 patent, they argued that they were using parsing for optimizing static
initialization, rather than "simulating execution" as the claim required. For the RE38104 patent, they argued
that the instruction did not include a symbolic reference. On May 23, 2012, the jury found non-infringement
on all patent claims.[29][30][31]

Judge Alsup issued the final verdict for both these phases on May 31, 2012. While the jury had found for
Oracle regarding copyright infringement of the APIs, Alsup determined that the APIs were not copyrightable
in the first place:

So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the
Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification
of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header
lines are identical.[10]

Alsup did agree with the jury that the rangeCheck function and eight security files were a copyright
infringement, but the only relief available was statutory damages up to a maximum of US$150,000[32][33]

As a result of these rulings and a stipulation, there was no jury damages phase. The parties agreed to zero
dollars in statutory damages for the small amount of copied code by June 2012.[34][35]

First appellate ruling

Shortly following the conclusion of the District Court case, both parties attempted to file additional JMOLs on
elements of the ruling which Alsup dismissed, leading to Oracle appealing the decision and Google filing a
cross-appeal on the literal copying claim. Because the case involved claims related to patents, the appeal was
automatically assigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[36][37] The hearing was
held on December 4, 2013,[38][39] and the judgment was released on May 9, 2014.[40]
The court noted that Copyright Act provides protection to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible
medium of expression" (p. 17). The legislative history explains that literary works include "computer programs
to the extent that they incorporate authorship in the programmer's expression of original ideas, as distinguished
from the ideas themselves" (p. 18). To qualify for copyright protection a work must be original. 17 U.S.C. §
102(a). The court was therefore "first to assess whether the expression is original to the programmer" (p. 24),
something that Google had already conceded (p. 21). This led the court to conclude "that the overall structure
of Oracle's API packages is creative, original, and resembles a taxonomy" (p. 14). It therefore reversed the
district court's decision on the central issue, holding that the "structure, sequence and organization" of an API
is copyrightable. It also ruled for Oracle regarding the small amount of literal copying, holding that it was not
de minimis. The case was remanded to the District Court for a second trial, to consider whether Google's use
was acceptable anyway, under the doctrine of fair use, since the original case had not brought out the facts
related to fair use sufficiently for the Appeal Court to rule on that point.[40][41]

In October 2014, Google petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case;[42] this request was denied in
June 2015.[43]

Second phase: fair use

Second District Court trial

As ordered by the Appeals Court, a new district court trial began on May 9, 2016, on the question of whether
Google's actions were fair use given the prior ruling that the APIs were copyrightable.[44][45] Closing
arguments were completed on May 23, 2016 and the jury began deliberations. Oracle was seeking damages of
up to US$9 billion.[46][47][48][49][50][51] On May 26, 2016, the jury found that Android does not infringe
Oracle-owned copyrights because its re-implementation of 37 Java APIs was protected by fair use.[52] Oracle
announced its intention to appeal,[53] but before doing so, it attempted unsuccessful motions to disregard the
jury verdict,[54] and then to hold a re-trial.[55][56] Oracle officially filed its appeal on October 26, 2016.[57]

Second appellate ruling

Oracle's appeal was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2017. On March
27, 2018, the Court ruled in favor of Oracle.[58] The ruling analyzed the aspects of a "fair use" claim which
were to be decided by a judge and jury, respectively. It then looked at the factual matters which, it had to be
assumed, the jury had reached, and their implications in law.[58] It noted that in a "mixed" case of fact and law,
such as the present dispute, the trial jury's role is to decide on the facts. Judge Alsup quoted the Supreme Court
case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/510/569/)
(1994) in his opinion, noting that:

truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an
abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art,
borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before[58]

The Appeal Court's role is to assess whether a reasonable jury could have reached the conclusions it did, and
whether the judge's decision could be correct and reasonable in law. The standard review of mixed questions
of law and fact concerned three components: "(1) determining the legal standard governing the question posed
and what types of historical facts are relevant to that standard; (2) finding what the historical facts in the case at
hand are; and (3) assessing whether the historical facts found satisfy the legal test governing the question to be
answered" (Decision p. 19). Except clear error, the role of the jury is limited to determining disputed 'historical
facts' (2). The facts are not discussed. "It is undisputed that Google copied verbatim the declaring code of the
37 Java API packages 11,500 lines of Oracle’s copyrighted code. It also copied the SSO of the Java API
packages. (Decision p.10)" It is also established and Google recognizes that the software copied is creative and
original.

The Court found that as a matter of law, Google's use of Java could not have fallen within fair use, even if all
factual matters decided by the jury had been in Google's favor. The Appeals Court found that Google's use of
API code declarations had not met any of the four current criteria for fair use, but was merely untransformed
reuse. It had not been transformative, since it was used for the same purposes without even minimal changes or
rewrites. It was not minimal, since it was agreed that only 170 lines of the 11,500 lines copied were needed for
Google's purposes. It was not within any example of transformation, nor intended to permit third party
interoperability, since Google had made no substantial efforts to use them for the purpose of third party
interoperability. (In fact it found that Google had tried to prevent interoperability with other Java and had
previously been refused a license by Sun for that reason.[12]) It was not transformative in the sense of a new
platform either, since other Java smartphones predated Android.[58] It was plausible that the use had harmed
Sun/Oracle – perhaps to a great extent if Oracle were to be believed – since as a result, vendors began
expecting Oracle to compete on price with a freely available derivative of its own language, and to require
very steep discounts and undesired contractual terms.[58] Therefore, Google's use of the Java code and APIs
failed to meet all four of the currently accepted criteria under which fair use would be possible.[58]

Instead, the Court found that Google's purpose had been to enhance its nascent Android platform's
attractiveness to existing developers, who were often familiar with Java, and to avoid the "drudgery" of
rewriting the code (which they could have done) needed to implement the 170 lines of API detail which were
indeed required. "Making it easy for oneself", the court noted, is well established to not fall within valid
grounds for fair use. The Court found that "The fact that Android is free of charge does not make Google's use
of the Java API packages noncommercial".[59] Oracle

devised a licensing scheme to attract programmers while simultaneously commercializing the

platform. In relevant part, Oracle charges a licensing fee to those who want to use the APIs in a
competing platform or embed them in an electronic device. To preserve the "write once, run
anywhere" philosophy, Oracle imposes strict compatibility requirements on licensees.[60]

The purpose was commercial, the established historical facts by the jury did not satisfy any of the criteria for
fair use,[58] and the Court remanded the case back to the District Court of the Northern District of California to
determine the amount of damage that Google should pay Oracle.[59]

Supreme Court
Google filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States in January 2019 to
challenge the two rulings that were made by the appeals court in Oracle's favor. In its petition, Google centered
its case on whether copyright extends to a software interface like an API, and whether the use of the Java API
by Google fell within fair use as found at the jury trials.[61] In orders issued in April 2019, the Court asked the
Solicitor General of the United States to file an amicus brief to outline the government's stance on the case.[62]
The Trump administration backed Oracle and urged the Court to deny certiorari. Microsoft, Mozilla
Corporation, Red Hat Inc., and others filed amicus briefs in support of Google's position.[63] IBM, the
Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Internet Association, the Auto Care Association, and
a collective group of over 150 academics and computer professionals also filed briefs supporting Google's
stance, cautioning that a decision in favor of Oracle would hurt the computing world as a whole.[64]
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on November 15, 2019, and was expected to hear the case on March 24,
2020.[65][66][67] However, the Supreme Court postponed its March argument session on March 16 in light of
concerns surrounding COVID-19, and later announced that Google v. Oracle was one of several cases from
the 2019–20 term to be postponed until the first week of the 2020–21 term.[68][69][70] Following the delay, the
Court asked parties to submit additional briefs related to Seventh Amendment question raised by Google,
given that the Federal District court had overridden some of the findings of facts that the jury had concluded in
their case at the District level.[71]

Oral arguments were heard via teleconference due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on October 7,
2020.[72] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died the prior month, and her replacement, Justice Amy Coney
Barrett, had not yet been confirmed, so Barrett took no part in the proceedings.[73] Court observers found that
while the Justices seemed to side with Oracle on the copyright arguments, they also took deference to the
arguments presented by Microsoft, who had taken Google's side on the case. Microsoft argued in an amicus
brief that ruling in Oracle's favor could upend the software industry. Several questions focused on how APIs
fell within the idea–expression distinction of copyright and if the merger doctrine would apply. Justice
Gorsuch was also seen to focus heavily on the Seventh Amendment arguments and whether the Federal
Circuit's ruling to overturn the trial court's jury verdict was proper.[72][74]

The Court issued its decision on April 5, 2021. In a 6–2 majority, the Court ruled that Google's use of the Java
APIs was within the bounds of fair use, reversing the Federal Circuit Appeals Court ruling and remanding the
case for further hearing. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion. Breyer's opinion began with the
assumption that the APIs may be copyrightable, and thus proceeded with a review of the four factors that
contributed to fair use:[75][76]

1. The nature of the copyrighted work: Breyer's analysis identified that APIs served as declaring
code rather than implementation, and that in context of copyright, it served an "organization
function" similar to the Dewey Decimal System, in which fair use is more applicable.[77]
2. The purpose and character of the use: Breyer stated that Google took and transformed the Java
APIs "to expand the use and usefulness of Android-based smartphones" which "creat[ed] a
new platform that could be readily used by programmers".[76] Breyer also wrote that Google
limited to using the Java APIs "as needed to include tasks that would be useful in smartphone
programs".[76]
3. The amount and substantiality of the copyrighted material: Breyer said that Google only used
about 0.4% of the total Java source code and was minimal. On the question of substantiality,
Breyer wrote that Google did not copy the code that was at the heart of how Java was
implemented, and that "Google copied those lines not because of their creativity, their beauty,
or even (in a sense) because of their purpose. It copied them because programmers had
already learned to work with [Java SE], and it would have been difficult … to attract
programmers to … Android … without them."[76]
4. The market effect of the copyright-taking. Breyer said that at the time that Google copied the
Java APIs, it was not clear if Android would become successful, and should not be considered
as a replacement for Java but as a product operating on a different platform.[76] Breyer further
stated that if they had found for Oracle, it "would risk harm to the public", as "Oracle alone
would hold the key. The result could well prove highly profitable to Oracle (or other firms
holding a copyright in computer interfaces) ... [but] the lock would interfere with, not further,
copyright's basic creativity objectives."[75]

Breyer determined that Google's use of the APIs had met all four factors, and that Google used "only what
was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program".[75]
Breyer concluded that "we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use. Hence,
Google's copying did not violate the copyright law."[73] This conclusion rendered the need to evaluate the
copyright of the API unnecessary.[75]
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Samuel Alito.[78] Thomas
wrote that the majority opinion created a new distinction between implementing code and declaring code that
Congress had rejected, and thus, "the result of this distorting analysis is an opinion that makes it difficult to
imagine any circumstance in which declaring code will remain protected by copyright."[79] Thomas further
stated that in his own fair use analysis that "Google's use of that copyrighted code was anything but fair".[80]

Impact
Google v. Oracle had been a closely watched case by the tech industry, as a ruling favoring Oracle could have
had significant effects on past and future software development, given the prolific use of APIs.[81] Opponents
of the federal court's ruling, including Google and other developers of Android-based software, had raised
several concerns including the impact on interoperability, software innovation and the potential for bad actors
to pick up the rights to old software and file claims against companies who built their software on what were
assumed to be open standards. If this ruling was allowed to stand, it was believed that companies will be
forced to implement deliberately incompatible standards to protect themselves from the risk of complex
litigation, moving away from the current trends in software development which have focused on improving
interoperability between different services allowing apps to communicate with one another, creating more
integrated platforms for end users.[61][13]

Industry and legal experts had stated an Oracle victory could have created a chilling effect in software
development, with copyright holders using the copyright on APIs to prevent their use in developing
interoperable alternatives through reverse engineering, as common in open source software
development.[82][83][84] At the same time, experts cautioned that a judgment favoring Google's position may
weaken protection for copyright for software code developers, allowing competitors with better resources to
develop improved products from smaller firms, and reduce the motive for innovation within the
industry.[85][86]

One example identified by Wired is the Linux operating system. While Linux is fully open source, it is based
on POSIX, a set of APIs that mimic those of the commercial Unix operating system that enable high levels of
interoperability for developers; a programmer would only need to write one set of code which then can
compile on any system that has the same API, even if the computing architecture of the systems are different.
If case law favored Oracle, the current owners of Unix, Micro Focus, could have sought damages from any
POSIX-based operating system developer intending to use the operating system for commercial use.[87]

See also
Oracle Corporation v. SAP AG

References
1. Southwick, Karen (1999). High Noon: the inside story of Scott McNealy and the rise of Sun
Microsystems (https://archive.org/details/highnoon00kare/page/120). New York [u.a.]: Wiley.
pp. 120-122 (https://archive.org/details/highnoon00kare/page/120). ISBN 0471297135.
2. Jon Byous (April 2003). "Java Technology: The Early Years" (https://web.archive.org/web/2008
0530073139/http://java.sun.com/features/1998/05/birthday.html). Sun Microsystems. Archived
from the original (http://java.sun.com/features/1998/05/birthday.html) on May 30, 2008.
Retrieved 2009-08-02.
3. Krill, Paul (November 11, 2016). "After a decade, open source Java is still controversial" (http
s://www.infoworld.com/article/3138505/java/open-source-java-at-10-big-benefits-but-detractors-
remain.html). InfoWorld. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
 4. Lamonica, Martin (February 13, 2007). "Sun picks GPL license for Java code" (https://www.cne
t.com/news/sun-picks-gpl-license-for-java-code/). CNet. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
5. Jeong, Sarah (October 19, 2017). "THE JUDGE'S CODE" (https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/
19/16503076/oracle-vs-google-judge-william-alsup-interview-waymo-uber). The Verge.
Retrieved March 28, 2018.
6. Farber, Dan (April 26, 2012). "Former Sun CEO says Google's Android didn't need license for
Java APIs" (https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-android-didnt-need-licen
se-for-java-apis/). CNet. Retrieved March 28, 2018.
7. Vogelstein, Fred (April 2011). "How the Android Ecosystem Threatens the iPhone" (https://ww
w.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/mf_android/all/1). Wired. Retrieved June 2, 2012.
8. Elgin, Ben (August 17, 2005). "Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal" (https://www.webcit
ation.org/5wk7sIvVb?url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc200508
17_0949_tc024.htm). Bloomberg Businessweek. Bloomberg. Archived from the original (http://
www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm) on
February 24, 2011. Retrieved 2012-02-20. "In what could be a key move in its nascent wireless
strategy, Google (GOOG) has quietly acquired startup Android Inc. ..."
9. Brodkin, Jon (April 24, 2012). "Sun wanted up to $50 million from Google for Java license,
Schmidt says" (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/sun-wanted-up-to-50-million-from-g
oogle-for-java-license-schmidt-says/). Ars Technica. Retrieved March 28, 2018.
10. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 974 (https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20
120601k39) (N.D. Cal. 2012).
11. "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Equitable Defenses" (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf
3/OraGoogle-1203.pdf) (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of
California/Groklaw. May 31, 2012. Retrieved June 2, 2012.
12. Ruling, para 34: " The point of contention between the parties was Google's refusal to make the
implementation of its programs compatible with the Java virtual machine or interoperable with
other Java programs. Because Sun/Oracle found that position to be anathema to the "write
once, run anywhere" philosophy, it did not grant Google a license to use the Java API
packages."
13. Amadeo, Ron (January 6, 2016). "Android N switches to OpenJDK, Google tells Oracle it is
protected by the GPL" (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switches-to-openj
dk-google-tells-oracle-it-is-protected-by-the-gpl/). Ars Technica. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
14. "ORACLE'S MOTION REGARDING APACHE HARMONY" (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraG
oogle-959.pdf) (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of
California/Groklaw. April 22, 2012. Retrieved December 4, 2015.
15. Metz, Cade (November 1, 2010). "Google's 'copied Java code' disowned by Apache" (https://w
ww.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/01/oracle_hits_google_with_code_copying_claims/). The
Register. Retrieved March 28, 2018.
16. "Google Launches Android, an Open Mobile Platform" (http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/
11/google-launches-android-open-mobile.html). Google Operating System. November 5, 2007.
17. Helft, Miguel and John Markoff (November 6, 2007). "Google Is Pursuing Plans to Put a PC Into
Every Pocket" (https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E2DF173FF935A35752C
1A9619C8B63&pagewanted=all). The New York Times. Retrieved June 2, 2012.
18. "Google releases Android SDK" (http://www.macworld.com/article/61005/2007/11/androidsdk.h
tml). Macworld. November 12, 2007.
19. Schwartz, Jonathan (November 5, 2007). "Congratulations Google, Red Hat and the Java
Community!" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101023072550/http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entr
y/congratulations_google). Sun Microsystems. Archived from the original (http://blogs.sun.com/j
onathan/entry/congratulations_google) on October 23, 2010. Retrieved June 1, 2012.
20. Shankland, Stephan (January 27, 2010). "Oracle buys Sun, becomes hardware company" (http
s://www.cnet.com/news/oracle-buys-sun-becomes-hardware-company/). CNet. Retrieved
March 28, 2018.
21. Montalbano, Elizabeth (April 20, 2009). "Oracle, Entering Hardware Arena, Agrees to Buy Sun
for $7.4 Billion" (https://www.pcworld.com/article/163419/oracle_enters_hardware_arena_buys
_sun.html). PC World. Retrieved March 28, 2018.
22. "Oracle sues Google over Android" (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-oracle-android-l
awsuit-idUSTRE67B5G720100813). Reuters. August 13, 2010. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
23. Krazit, Tom (August 13, 2010). "Oracle sues Google over Android and Java" (https://www.cnet.c
om/news/oracle-sues-google-over-android-and-java/). CNet. Retrieved March 28, 2018.
24. Bishop, Bryan (May 7, 2012). "Jury finds Google infringed Oracle copyrights in partial verdict;
Google moves for mistrial" (https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/7/3004697/oracle-google-trial-de
adlocked-jury-partial-verdict). The Verge. Retrieved March 28, 2018.
25. Barry, Michaela (2013). "Oracle v. Google – Copyrightability of APIs" (https://www.potomaclaw.
com/oracle-v-google-copyrightability-apis/). Potomac Law Group. Retrieved March 28, 2018.
26. "Day 1 of Patent Phase in Oracle v. Google & Google Opp. Re Schwartz, as text" (http://www.gr
oklaw.net/article.php?story=2012050710565283). Groklaw. May 7, 2012. Retrieved June 1,
2012.
27. US patent 6061520 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US606152
0), Yellin, Frank & Tuck, Richard D, "Method and system for performing static initialization",
issued 2000-05-09, assigned to Sun Microsystems and Oracle
28. US Patent No. RE38104 (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HIT
OFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTX
T&s1=RE38104.PN.&OS=PN/RE38104&RS=PN/RE38104) , Gosling, James, "Method and
apparatus for resolving data references in generated code", issued 2003-04-29, assigned to
Sun Microsystems and Oracle
29. "Court filing" (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1190.pdf) (PDF). www.groklaw.net.
30. Lowenson, Josh (May 23, 2012). "Jury verdict: Android doesn't infringe Oracle's patents" (http
s://www.cnet.com/news/jury-verdict-android-doesnt-infringe-oracles-patents/). CNet. Retrieved
March 28, 2018.
31. Josh Lowensohn (May 23, 2012). "Jury clears Google of infringing on Oracle's patents" (https://
www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/jury-clears-google-of-infringing-on-oracle-patents/77897). ZDNet.
Retrieved 2012-05-25.
32. King, Rachel (May 31, 2012). "Judge says 37 Oracle APIs are not copyrightable" (https://www.c
net.com/news/judge-says-37-oracle-apis-are-not-copyrightable/). CNet. Retrieved March 28,
2018.
33. Joe Mullin (May 31, 2012). "Google wins crucial API ruling, Oracle's case decimated" (https://ar
stechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/google-wins-crucial-api-ruling-oracles-case-decimated/).
Ars Technica. Retrieved 2012-06-01.
34. Niccolai, James (June 20, 2012). "Oracle agrees to 'zero' damages in Google lawsuit, eyes
appeal" (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228298/Oracle_agrees_to_zero_damages_i
n_Google_lawsuit_eyes_appeal). Retrieved 2012-06-23.
35. "Second Stipulation and (Proposed) Order Regarding Copyright Damages" (http://www.grokla
w.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1210.pdf) (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of
California/Groklaw. Retrieved 2012-06-23.
36. "Court Docket for Oracle v. Google Appeal" (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_
Appeals_Federal_Circuit/13-1021/Oracle_America_Inc._v._Google_Inc./). Docket Alarm, Inc.
Retrieved 10 May 2014.
37. Jones, Pamela (October 5, 2012). "Oracle and Google File Appeals" (http://www.groklaw.net/art
iclebasic.php?story=20121005082638280). Groklaw. Retrieved November 17, 2012.
38. "FOSS Patents" (http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/q-on-dec-4-oracle-v-google-android-jav
a.html).
39. "FOSS Patents" (http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/12/detailed-analysis-of-federal-circuit.html).
40. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140509
135) (Fed. Cir. 2014).
41. Rosenblatt, Seth (May 9, 2014). "Court sides with Oracle over Android in Java patent appeal"
(https://www.cnet.com/news/court-sides-with-oracle-over-android-in-java-patent-appeal/).
CNET. Retrieved 2014-05-10.
42. Levine, Dan (October 8, 2014). "Google asks Supreme Court to decide Oracle copyright fight"
(https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0HX2DG20141008). Reuters. Retrieved January 5,
2021.
43. 135 S. Ct. 2887 (2015), "Order List (06/29/2015)" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor
ders/062915zor_4g25.pdf) (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
44. "Google puts its expert on the stand to combat Oracle, wraps up its case" (https://arstechnica.co
m/tech-policy/2016/05/google-puts-its-expert-on-the-stand-to-combat-oracle-wraps-up-its-cas
e/). Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
45. "Second Oracle v. Google trial could lead to huge headaches for developers" (https://arstechnic
a.com/tech-policy/2016/05/round-2-of-oracle-v-google-is-an-unpredictable-trial-over-api-fair-us
e/). Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
46. James Niccolai (28 March 2016). "Oracle seeks $9.3 billion for Google's use of Java in
Android" (http://www.pcworld.com/article/3048818/oracle-seeks-93-billion-for-googles-use-of-ja
va-in-android.html). PCWorld.
47. "Oracle v. Google" (https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google). Electronic Frontier Foundation.
48. "Oracle v. Google draws to a close, jury sent home until next week" (https://arstechnica.com/tec
h-policy/2016/05/oracle-v-google-draws-to-a-close-jury-sent-home-until-next-week/). Ars
Technica. Retrieved 28 May 2016.
49. "Oracle slams Google to jury: "You don't take people's property" " (https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2016/05/oracle-slams-google-to-jury-you-dont-take-peoples-property/). Ars Technica.
Retrieved 2016-05-24.
50. "Sun's Jonathan Schwartz at trial: Java was free, Android had no licensing problem" (https://ars
technica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-schwartz-at-trial-java-was-free-android-had-n
o-licensing-problem/). Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
51. "Oracle economist: Android stole Java's 'window of opportunity' " (https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2016/05/oracle-economist-android-stole-javas-window-of-opportunity/). Ars Technica.
Retrieved 2016-05-24.
52. Mullin, Joe (26 May 2016). "Google beats Oracle—Android makes 'fair use' of Java APIs" (http
s://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/google-wins-trial-against-oracle-as-jury-finds-android-i
s-fair-use/). Ars Technica. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
53. "Google beats Oracle—Android makes "fair use' of Java APIs" (https://arstechnica.com/tech-pol
icy/2016/05/google-wins-trial-against-oracle-as-jury-finds-android-is-fair-use/). Ars Technica.
Retrieved 2016-05-26.
54. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 3:10-cv-03561 1988 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4
177532/1988/oracle-america-inc-v-google-inc/) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2016).
55. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 3:10-cv-03561 2070 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4
177532/2070/oracle-america-inc-v-google-inc/) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016).
56. "Oracle denied new trial in copyright dispute with Google over Java" (http://www.pcworld.com/a
rticle/3125113/oracle-denied-new-trial-in-copyright-dispute-with-google-over-java.html).
57. Mullin, Joe (27 October 2016). "It's official: Oracle will appeal its "fair use" loss against Google"
(https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/its-official-oracle-will-appeal-its-fair-use-loss-again
st-google/). Ars Technica. Retrieved 27 October 2016.
58. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 886 F.3d 1179 (https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180327
178) (Fed. Cir. 2018).
59. Decker, Susan (March 27, 2018). "Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google"
(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-27/oracle-wins-revival-of-billion-dollar-case
-against-google). Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved March 27, 2018.
60. (p.9 2017-118, 207-102)
61. Lee, Timothy (January 25, 2019). "Google asks Supreme Court to overrule disastrous ruling on
API copyrights" (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/google-asks-supreme-court-to-ove
rrule-disastrous-ruling-on-api-copyrights/). Ars Technica. Retrieved January 25, 2019.
62. Chung, Andrew (April 29, 2019). "U.S. Supreme Court seeks Trump administration views on
Google-Oracle copyright feud" (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1S51CQ). Reuters.
Retrieved January 5, 2021.
63. Stohr, Greg (November 15, 2019). "Google Gets U.S. Supreme Court Hearing in Oracle
Copyright Clash" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-15/google-gets-u-s-supre
me-court-hearing-in-oracle-copyright-clash?cmpId=google). Bloomberg Businessweek.
Retrieved November 15, 2019.
64. Robertson, Adi (January 14, 2020). "Some of Google's biggest rivals are taking its side in a
Supreme Court battle" (https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21059180/oracle-google-supreme
-court-copyright-lawsuit-amicus-brief-filings). The Verge. Retrieved January 14, 2020.
65. "Docket for 18-956" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-956.html).
November 15, 2019. Retrieved January 8, 2020.
66. Higgens, Tucker (November 15, 2019). "Supreme Court will hear Google's appeal in massive
copyright suit brought by Oracle" (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/supreme-court-will-hear-co
pyright-suit-between-google-and-oracle.html). CNBC. Retrieved November 15, 2019.
67. Robertson, Adi (February 13, 2020). "Oracle strikes back at Google in Supreme Court copyright
case" (https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/13/21136492/oracle-google-supreme-court-copyright-j
ava-response-trial). The Verge. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
68. Howe, Amy (March 16, 2020). "Justices postpone March argument session" (https://www.scotu
sblog.com/2020/03/justices-postpone-march-argument-session/). SCOTUSblog. Retrieved
March 17, 2020.
69. de Vogue, Ariane (April 13, 2020). "Supreme Court to hear cases on Trump's financial docs,
religious freedom and Electoral College via telephone" (https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/politic
s/supreme-court-cases-teleconference/index.html). CNN. Retrieved April 13, 2020.
70. Tsidulko, Joseph (July 13, 2020). "Oracle v Google Copyright Case Slated For Supreme Court
Arguments" (https://www.crn.com/news/mobility/oracle-v-google-copyright-case-slated-for-supr
eme-court-arguments). CRN. Retrieved July 13, 2020.
71. https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/case-preview-justices-to-weigh-in-on-landmark-copyright-
battle-between-google-and-oracle/
72. Higgens, Tucker (October 7, 2020). "Justices wary of upending tech industry in Google v.
Oracle Supreme Court fight" (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/07/supreme-court-hears-google-v-
oracle-software-copyright-case.html). CNBC. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
73. Gresko, Jessica (April 5, 2021). "Top court sides with Google in copyright dispute with Oracle"
(https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/top-court-sides-google-copyright-dispute-oracle-7
6878874). Associated Press. Retrieved April 5, 2021 – via ABC News.
74. McDermott, Eileen (October 7, 2020). "Justices Look for Reassurance That the Sky Won't Fall
When They Rule in Google v. Oracle" (https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/10/07/justices-look-re
assurance-sky-wont-fall-google-v-oracle/id=126052/). IP Watchdog. Retrieved October 8, 2020.
75. Fung, Brian (April 5, 2021). "Supreme Court hands Google a victory in a multibillion-dollar case
against Oracle" (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/05/tech/google-oracle-supreme-court-ruling/inde
x.html). CNN. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
76. Mann, Ronald (April 6, 2021). "Justices validate Google's use of Java platform in Android
software code" (https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/justices-validate-googles-use-of-java-plat
form-in-android-software-code/). SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
77. Nanos, Elura (April 5, 2021). "The Supreme Court Just Sided with Google's Copying of
Thousands of Lines of Code. Justice Thomas Went Off" (https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-cou
rt/the-supreme-court-just-sided-with-google-for-copying-lines-of-code-justice-thomas-went-off/).
Law and Crime. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
78. Higgens, Tucker (April 5, 2021). "Supreme Court rules in Google's favor in copyright dispute
with Oracle over Android software" (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/05/supreme-court-rules-in-g
oogles-favor-in-copyright-dispute-with-oracle-over-android-software.html). CNBC. Retrieved
April 5, 2021.
79. Brandom, Russell; Robertson, Aid (April 5, 2021). "Supreme Court sides with Google in
Oracle's API copyright case" (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/5/22367851/google-oracle-supr
eme-court-ruling-java-android-api). The Verge. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
80. Fritze, John (April 5, 2021). "Supreme Court sides with Google in years long fight with tech
giant Oracle" (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/05/supreme-court-googles
-use-oracle-code-android-fair-use/4339371001/). USA Today. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
81. Kendall, Brent; Greene, Jay (March 27, 2018). "Oracle Wins Court Ruling Against Google in
Multibillion-Dollar Copyright Case" (https://www.wsj.com/articles/oracle-wins-court-ruling-again
st-google-in-long-running-copyright-case-1522164091). The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved
March 27, 2018.
82. Caballar, Rina Diane (February 19, 2020). "Google v. Oracle Explained: The Fight for
Interoperable Software" (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/software/google-v-oracle
-explained-supreme-court-news-apis-software). IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved September 8, 2020.
83. Lee, Timothy (May 26, 2016). "Why Google's victory in a copyright fight with Oracle is a big
deal" (https://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11790878/google-oracle-fight-explained). Vox. Retrieved
September 8, 2020.
84. Livni, Ephrat (November 20, 2019). "US Supreme Court holds innovation in the balance in
Google v Oracle" (https://qz.com/1751975/in-google-v-oracle-scotus-holds-innovation-in-the-ba
lance/). Quartz. Retrieved September 8, 2020.
85. Auth, Dorothy R.; Wizenfeld, Howard (February 7, 2020). "Google v. Oracle: Will Software Be
Free?" (https://www.natlawreview.com/article/google-v-oracle-will-software-be-free). National
Law Review. Retrieved September 8, 2020.
86. Stricklett, Sue Ghosh (September 8, 2020). "Google v. Oracle: An Expansive Fair Use Defense
Deters Investment In Original Content" (https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/01/19/google-v-oracl
e-expansive-fair-use-defense-deters-investment-original-content/id=117951/). IP Watchdog.
Retrieved September 8, 2020.
87. Finley, Klint (May 23, 2016). "The Oracle-google Case Will Decide The Future Of Software" (htt
ps://www.wired.com/2016/05/oracle-google-case-will-decide-future-software/). Wired.
Retrieved March 27, 2018.

External links
Slip opinion (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.&oldid=1016555771"

This page was last edited on 7 April 2021, at 20:09 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.