Google's Android Appeal Rejected by Supreme Court - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Mobile // Mobile Applications
News
6/29/2015
07:06 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Google's Android Appeal Rejected by Supreme Court

Oracle's copyright lawsuit against Google over Android now returns to a lower court.

9 Ways Technology Is Slowly Killing Us All
9 Ways Technology Is Slowly Killing Us All
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Google's argument to overturn a federal appeals court ruling that Oracle's Java APIs qualify for copyright protection.

The case now returns to a lower court to determine whether Google's use of Oracle's copyrighted APIs can be excused as fair use.

The Supreme Court's rejection of Google's appeal represents a major victory for Oracle, which in 2012 saw its patent claims against Google rejected and its copyright claim invalidated. After the jury in the case deadlocked over whether Google's use of Java in Android qualified as fair use, US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that Oracle's Java APIs were not protected under copyright law, a decision that echoed a similar finding in a different case by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

But Google's victory did not last. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington reversed Alsup's decision in May 2014. And now the Supreme Court has refused to review that ruling.

"Today's Supreme Court decision is a win for innovation and for the technology industry that relies on copyright protection to fuel innovation," said Oracle general counsel Dorian Daley in an emailed statement.

[ Talk nerdy to me. Read 10 Smartphone Apps You Can Talk To. ]

Google did not respond to a request for comment.

A group of intellectual property professors concerned about the case argued in a brief that the Supreme Court should consider Google's appeal to ensure ongoing software innovation. "Unless reversed, [the Federal Appeals Court decision] is likely to have a chilling effect on the willingness of software startup firms and open source developers to create innovative programs that can be executed on incumbent firm platforms," the group argued.

Mike Godwin, general counsel and director of innovation policy for R Street Institute, a free market think tank that has received funding from Google, said in an emailed statement that contrary to the Federal Circuit decision, APIs should not be copyrightable. "APIs are more like functional descriptions, like the recipe for your favorite dish, than they are the kind of creative expression that copyright law is designed to protect," he said.

If Google manages to convince the lower court hearing the case to accept its incorporation of Java APIs in Android as fair use, it will escape unscathed, apart from the cost of the litigation. But interested parties like the Department of Justice have asserted that Google's fair use argument is undermined by its decision to make Android incompatible with the Java platform. Interoperability represents one reason that copyright infringement in software might be allowed as fair use.

Google could settle with Oracle, which presumably would end up with Google paying a significant sum – Oracle initially sought a billion dollars in damages – and negotiating a license from Oracle to continue to use its intellectual property. But it's unlikely Google will give Oracle that kind of leverage over Android unless it has no other options.

Google has already take some steps to distance itself from Oracle going forward. Android's recently introduced ART virtual machine, for example, appears to be an escape from its previous Dalvik virtual machine, which Oracle claimed infringed its patents. Google may have further technical changes prepared, though any such alterations to Android would not address past infringement.

Google's predicament appears to be one of its own making. Florian Mueller, an intellectual property blogger who has worked as a consultant for Oracle, argued that, had Google chosen to release Android under the GPLv2 license that governs Java, it might have had a stronger argument for its use of Oracle's Java APIs. However, by doing so, Google would have ended up with less control over Android's evolution. Instead, Google published Android under the Apache license, for reasons that it explains, such as appeasing device makers who don't want to abide by GPLv2 license requirements. The price for that decision could be significant.

Thomas Claburn has been writing about business and technology since 1996, for publications such as New Architect, PC Computing, InformationWeek, Salon, Wired, and Ziff Davis Smart Business. Before that, he worked in film and television, having earned a not particularly useful ... View Full Bio

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Technocrati
50%
50%
Technocrati,
User Rank: Ninja
6/30/2015 | 2:32:44 AM
Re: Security
I must admit I do enjoy watching these two heavyweights fight it out. If not Java then what ? 
tzubair
50%
50%
tzubair,
User Rank: Ninja
6/30/2015 | 12:55:45 AM
Re: Security
"Copyright schmopyright.  The real problem is that they're using Java.  #Infosec"

@Joe: I agree. The security issues with Java persist and will continue to do so. Organizations all over are finding ways to get out of Java and use an alternate platform because they literally have no control over the black box. It can very easily turn into a security nightmare.
tzubair
50%
50%
tzubair,
User Rank: Ninja
6/30/2015 | 12:52:51 AM
Settlement
I don't think why settlement should be a major issue here. Google has deep pockets and they can afford to take money out and get done with it. Java is on the decline and is actually going to be obsolete soon. I don't think they can do much with the platform anyway. So as long as they are able to get something out of it, it should be fine. A settlement is a win-win.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
6/29/2015 | 11:12:35 PM
Security
Copyright schmopyright.  The real problem is that they're using Java.  #Infosec
asksqn
50%
50%
asksqn,
User Rank: Ninja
6/29/2015 | 7:45:28 PM
Tall Tales for the Reality-Challenged
<excerpt>

 

[...] copyright protection to fuel innovation," said Oracle.

 

LOL.  Said the gloating, bloated, billionaire fox guarding the hen house.  The reality is that copyright in the US is broken and benefits only the deep-pocketed.

<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Commentary
The Best Way to Get Started with Data Analytics
John Edwards, Technology Journalist & Author,  7/8/2020
Slideshows
10 Cyberattacks on the Rise During the Pandemic
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  6/24/2020
News
IT Trade Shows Go Virtual: Your 2020 List of Events
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  5/29/2020
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
Key to Cloud Success: The Right Management
This IT Trend highlights some of the steps IT teams can take to keep their cloud environments running in a safe, efficient manner.
Slideshows
Flash Poll