Google’s Alphabet Inc. received a mixed reception in the U.S. Supreme Court when it tried to reverse a decision that could compel the corporation to pay billions of dollars for using the proprietary code of Oracle Corp. in the Android operating system inappropriately.
Having a low-tech phone session in one of the largest software battles in American history, Google’s claim that it had no way to reproduce the code without asking millions of software developers to learn a new language of programming was challenged by the justices on Wednesday.
Justice Neil Gorsuch informed Google’s lawyer that Apple Inc. and other businesses “have come up with phones that operate just fine without this form of copying.”
But Gorsuch also raised the prospect of returning the case to a federal appeals court for another look at the argument by Google that it engaged in legal “fair use” of the programming language of Oracle’s Java.
Oracle claims it’s entitled to damages of at least $8.8 billion. A jury ruled that a legal, fair use was Google’s code copying, but that decision was overturned by a federal appeals court.
The court’s ruling, due by July, promises to reorganise the legal protections for software, especially the interfaces that allow communication between programs and devices.
The situation could change how programmers design new software and operating systems, including cell phones and computers, for devices that are vital to daily life.
Safe-Cracking
The debate was set for an hour but continued on for more than 90 minutes as the judges peppered the lawyers with restaurant menu analogies, sports teams, and typewriters.
Chief Justice John Roberts compared Google’s behaviour to those of a safe-cracker in a sceptical line of questioning.
Roberts told Google’s lawyer, Thomas Goldstein, “Cracking the safe might be the only way of getting cash that you want, but that doesn’t mean you can do it.” “If that’s the only way, then the only way you can get it is to get a license.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicated that Google was more sympathetic to her. She asked Joshua Rosenkranz, Oracle’s counsel, why the court should “now amend what the industry has seen as the copyrightable components” of the computer code.
In the case, tech companies such as Microsoft Corp., Mozilla Corp., and International Business Machines Corp. backed Google, arguing that developers of software need the freedom to create new systems and programs that can interact without fear of copyright liability with existing technologies and devices.
Oracle has been supported by media and film firms because their businesses depend on solid copyright standards.
Among the trade associations that filed briefs in the case were the Motion Picture Association, which supports Walt Disney Studios, Netflix Inc and Sony Pictures Entertainment., and the News Media Alliance, which represents news outlets including The New York Times and News Corp.
Existential Threat
Oracle claims Google faced an existential challenge because its search engine was not being used on smartphones — the source of its advertisement revenue. In 2005, Google purchased the Android mobile operating system and copied Java code to attract developers, but Oracle contends that it declined to grant a license.
Google contends that the decision of the appeals court would make it more difficult to use interfaces to create new software.
Google claims that it is categorically ineligible for copyright rights for user interfaces. The firm also claims that the appeals court narrowed the protection of “fair use” so as to make it difficult for a developer to reuse an interface in a new application.
According to Oracle court filings, Android created $42 billion for Google between 2007 and 2016. In March, the Supreme Court had intended to hear arguments, but when the Covid-19 pandemic struck, it scrapped the session.
