Google copied Oracle's code and used it on Android operating system. The case of Google-Oracle has been going on for 10 years. This time the US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Google.
The Oracle lawsuit against Google was filed in 2010. The company alleged that Google had infringed copyright by copying the code and using it on the Android operating system.
Currently, about 60 percent of the world's smartphones run on Android. If the verdict of the case was in favor of Oracle, hundreds of crores of people would have suffered.
Earlier, a US lower court ruled in favor of Oracle. But a recent Supreme Court ruling acquitted Google of the charges. The court ruled in favor of Google by a 6-2 vote.
The court ruled that copying Oracle's code was "fair use" under U.S. copyright law. Oracle has accused Google of copying more than 11,000 codes.
In his written opinion, Judge Stephen Breyer wrote, "If Oracle's copyright is applied here, the public will be at risk." Many programmers have used Oracle building blocks and know this very well. Now, with such a move, computer code will "bind new programmers to future creativity." The judge warned that in that case, "only Oracle will have the key."
Oracle, however, could not agree with the court. They have made it clear that they strongly disagree with the verdict in the court. According to the company, this will further increase the power of Google and reduce the ability of other companies to compete.
"They have stolen Java and gone through a decade of legal battles over it, as only an exclusive supporter can do," Oracle's chief lawyer Dorian Dale said in a statement.
"Google's business practices are being scrutinized by regulators around the world and in the United States because of such behavior."
Google, however, is calling the verdict a victory for the entire software industry. "Today's Supreme Court decision in the Google vs. Oracle case is a major victory for innovation, usability and computing." - Writes Ken Walker, Google's Senior Vice President of Global Operations.
"Thanks to the country's leading inventors, software engineers and copyright scholars for their support," he added.
Most judges agree that copying Google's Java code is subject to "fair use." But they disagreed on how traditional copyright law could be applied to computer code.
Judge Breyer acknowledged in writing for the majority that "conventional copyright ideas are difficult to apply in the technological world."
On the other hand, in her dissenting opinion, Judge Clarence Thomas wrote that approving fair use from the idea that only new products are being created is effectively redefining the whole idea.
"The new definition is mocking copyright." - Thomas warned.
He added that the majority did not rule on whether the code was copyright-worthy at all. Instead they have raised the question and relied on fair use.
0 Comments