What does the Google versus Oracle decision actually mean?
In the last turn in a seemingly endless series of API intellectual property spats, Oracle has had an earlier ruling overturned in its favor. Walter Nyland analyses the implications.
It is with unsurprising speed that all the usual suspects have
been popping out of their corners to condemn Oracle, praise Google,
and announce the end of the world as we know it. However, let’s
pause a moment to examine the decision in the ongoing smartphone IP
dispute that has been handed down by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. For it seems, as usual, that not
many people are actually reading the decision itself. And few even
know what the decision is about, from the very start.
Let’s begin by pointing out that Google has been
defending itself with the argument that any material it has
appropriated was not protected under copyright law. Google hasn’t
denied that it has used Java API material. It has merely disputed
that there was anything unlawful about it. The Federal Circuit has
now overruled the earlier decision that was in favor of Google.
Interestingly, Google may come to be surprisingly pleased about
this decision in the long run since Google is going to have to
contradict its own positions on API copyrightability if (and
probably when) Samsung decides to do to Android what Google did
(and continues to be doing) to Java.
After all, bear in mind that Samsung has been
reducing its reliance on Google’s Android operating system after
Google acquired handset maker Motorola Mobility Holdings. Consider
the scenario where Samsung may determine that its own Tizen
platform meets its strategic needs better than Android. For
example, Samsung may want more freedom to partner with other
providers or gradually promote its own offerings. This would lead
to a potentially irreconcilable conflict between Google and
Samsung, at which point Google will be very happy with the Federal
Circuit’s decision in regards to its dispute with
Google’s position has been consistently
confused, as the Federal Circuit points out in its decision: “given
the record evidence that Google designed Android so that it would
not be compatible with the Java platform, or the JVM specifically,
we find Google’s interoperability argument confusing. […] The
compatibility Google sought to foster was not with Oracle’s Java
platform or with the JVM central to that platform. Instead, Google
wanted to capitalize on the fact that software developers were
already trained and experienced in using the Java API packages at
The Federal Circuit also makes a strong
distinction between the Java programming language and the APIs,
while finding that only three of the Java APIs in question are
actually part of the Java language, but “Google could have written
its own API packages using the Java languages”, which, as the
opinion notes, “Google chose not to do”.
Maybe we should all step back a moment, and
consider that reasonable copyright protection for creative
API-related material is perhaps a good thing and that Oracle’s
position is one that coincidentally favors the open source movement
and the broader programming world at large. Moreover, the assertion
that Google copied 7,000 lines of protectable code by no means
implies that anything that might loosely be called an API is
protectable under copyright law. In most cases, reuse of APIs is
reuse of ways of doing things, as opposed to copying code, while
many other cases are reuse of snippets of code that are not
“creative”, in the sense that they encompass entire structures of
complex applications, as in the case of what Google did to Oracle
and what Samsung is now unable to do to Google.
In conclusion, more than anyone else, Google should
embrace this decision and be pleased with it more than most others.
And software developers at large have nothing to fear, once they
actually read the Federal Circuit’s decision for