A San Francisco jury found that Google’s implementation of 37 Java APIs in its own mobile operating system should be considered fair use.
Advertisement
Oracle general counsel Dorian Daley said, “Google developed Android by illegally copying core Java technology to rush into the mobile device market”. While Google lets smartphone manufacturers use Android software without charge, it makes billions of dollars by showing advertising to people who use Google services, including its popular search engine and maps, on Android phones and tablets.
When the Supreme Court refused to consider Google’s appeal past year, the case was returned to Alsup’s court to decide on the issue of fair use. A federal judge ruled against Oracle, but the company then appealed.
As a defense witness, Alphabet Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt’s role was pivotal as he convinced jurors that Google’s use of Java was only to innovate and had nothing to do with infringement of another company’s intellectual property. As indicated, the jury decided in favor of Google – finding that there was copyright infringement but that the infringement was permissible under Fair Use.
Supporters of Google, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EEF), applauded the jury verdict.
In 2014, a federal appeals court determined that Oracle may have a viable copyright claim on the API code. It would be a signal that APIs can be slapped with a copyright which would result in many companies forking out extensive licensing fees to use code that already exists. At one point during deliberations, the panel was stymied by a jury-room computer overwhelmed by the millions of lines of code that Oracle lawyers had included as evidence for them to consider.
UC Berkeley law professor Pam Samuelson said the litigation was a “very unusual” fair use case, which presented a challenge for Google’s attorneys.
Advertisement
Oracle, which acquired the rights to Java when it bought Sun Microsystems in 2010, on Thursday immediately vowed to appeal. Oracle originally brought a similar suit against Google back in 2010.
