Google announced today that it has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the long-running legal battle over its use of Java in Android.
“We built Android following the computer industry’s long-accepted practice of re-using software interfaces, which provide sets of commands that make it easy to implement common functionality—in the same way that computer keyboard short-cuts like pressing ‘control’ and ‘p’ make it easy to print,” Google Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker explains in a blog post. “Android created a transformative new platform, while letting millions of Java programmers use their existing skills to create new applications. And the creators of Java backed the release of Android, saying that it had ‘strapped another set of rockets to the [Java] community’s momentum’.”
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Java’s creators, of course, were purchased along with Java and the rest of Sun Microsystems by Oracle in 2010. And that company is the one that has been suing Google for using Java source code in Android, now the most dominant personal computing platform on earth.
The case has gone back and forth. In 2012, a federal court jury found that Google had not infringed on the Oracle’s Java patents, and that the Java APIs were protected under copyright law. But on appeal, that judgment was partially reversed, with a federal appeals court finding that software code was, in fact, copyrightable.
A second trial found that Google’s use of the Java source code constituted fair use. But Oracle appealed again and reversed that ruling. This case is currently awaiting a damages determination.
“The U.S. Constitution authorized copyrights to ‘promote the progress of science and useful arts,’ not to impede creativity or promote lock-in of software platforms,” Walker continues. “Leading voices from business, technology, academia, and the nonprofit sector agree and have spoken out about the potentially devastating impacts of this case.”
In its filing with the Supreme Court, Google reiterates its belief that its fair use of Java source code does not represent a copyright infringement and that its original court victories should stand.
“Google has never disputed that some forms of computer code are entitled to copyright protection,” the filing nots. “But the Federal Circuit’s widely criticized opinions—in an area in which that court has no specialized expertise—go much further, throwing a devastating one-two punch at the software industry. If allowed to stand, the Federal Circuit’s approach will upend the longstanding expectation of software developers that they are free to use existing software interfaces to build new computer programs. Developers who have invested in learning free and open programming languages such as Java will be unable to use those skills to create programs for new platforms—a result that will undermine both competition and innovation. Because this case is an optimal vehicle for addressing the exceptionally important questions presented, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.”
skane2600
<p>The courts in the 90s probably would have ruled in Google's favor. Apple vs Microsoft. Lotus vs Borland. Courts in recent years have embraced ruling in favor of copyright and patent holders to a degree they didn't in the past.</p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399357">In reply to lordbaal1:</a></em></blockquote><p>Which version of Oracle's Java JVM is embedded in an Android phone? It's just the interfaces isn't it? Imagine if Bell Labs copyrighted the semicolon for it's use as a designation for the end of a code line.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#399357">In reply to lordbaal1:</a></em></blockquote><p>but you know is google, they're good, everything they do is fine… if it was MS they're bad, everything they do is wrong.</p><p><br></p><p>clearly you can see it from google fanboys downvoted your comment</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399394">In reply to brduffy:</a></em></blockquote><p>I disagree. I see interfaces as the least important part from an implementation perspective. All the power comes from the code that lies beneath the interfaces. </p><p><br></p><p>On the other hand, interfaces are very important to the user of a language or framework because of all the effort required to learn those interfaces. Oracle essentially is willing to let developers throw out all that knowledge. If developers had understood that interfaces would be handled in this way, I suspect that Java would have been far less successful. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399443">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>Java's WORE capabilities have always been exaggerated. It works best for the kind of programs its creators were most familiar with – headless programs on Unix.</p><p><br></p><p>If Oracle had a patent on Java they might have been able to stop a clean-room implementation of it, but copyright doesn't offer that level of protection. Thus the argument is around the API which may or may not be protected by copyright.</p>
dontbe evil
<p>hope they'll give google the huge fine ever</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399456">In reply to RM:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's not a valid comparison. I don't know if that actually happened, but if it did the issue wouldn't be the APIs but rather the services behind them. Google isn't trying to access Oracle services through the Java API, they just wanted to access their own Java implementation through standard calls.</p>