Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (18-956)

argument 18-956

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 36m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the merger doctrine and how does it apply to Java API declarations?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case 18956, Google versus Oracle. Mr. Goldstein.

William W. Goldstein 0:08

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court, the merger doctrine resolves the copyrightability question in this case. Oracle has a copyright to the computer code in Java SE, but not a patent. That means that the public, not Oracle, has the right to Java SE's functions, and Oracle cannot leverage its copyright to create patent-like rights. Specifically, under the merger doctrine, there is no copyright protection for computer code that

Unknown 0:34

William W. Goldstein 0:35

the only way to perform those functions.

Unknown 0:37

Here,

William W. Goldstein 0:38

Java software developers have the right to use certain commands to create applications for Google's Android smartphone platform. But to work, the commands require Google to reuse an exact set of declarations from Java SE, like a key fits into a lock. Because there are no substitutes, Oracle is impermissibly claiming the exclusive right not merely to what the declarations say, but also to what the declarations do. That is not a copyright. It is a patent right. With respect to fair use, the long-settled practice of reusing software interfaces is critical to modern interoperable computer software.

Unknown 1:15

Here,

William W. Goldstein 1:16

reusing the minimally creative declarations allow the developers to write millions of creative applications that are used by more than a billion people. But those policy questions are almost academic because the issue is not whether this court would find fair use. The standard of review asks the much narrower question whether the jury could reasonably find fair use. Oracle now obviously regrets its demand that the jury weigh all the evidence and decide fair use in a general verdict that contains no subsidiary findings. No previous court ever held that only a court may decide fair use. It is so fact-bound that no prior appellate court ever overturned a fair use verdict. This uniquely contested case should not be the first.

William W. Goldstein 1:57

Today, you will hear three lawyers present legal arguments for an hour. In 2016, the jury heard the starkly conflicting testimony of almost 30 witnesses and reviewed roughly 200 exhibits over two and a half weeks. This case perfectly illustrates, as this court recently reiterated in Georgia v. Public Resource, that fair use, quote, is notoriously fact-sensitive

John G. Roberts 2:18

and often cannot be resolved without a trial. Mr. Goldstein, let's say someone copies the headings in your brief and they copy the organization in your brief, which sections you put first and how you organize them. Would your argument say that that's perfectly fine so long as they write their own text?

William W. Goldstein 2:41

No, sir. A computer program is entirely different. And in addition, you wouldn't have the issue of the murder doctrine. The issue here is that it is not possible to provide the functionality that we have the right to with Android without recreating that structure. I

John G. Roberts 2:57

understand your merger argument is different, but I don't think that was the question I asked. In terms of

William W. Goldstein 3:06

whether you could simply recreate the headings from a brief or a book and recreate the structure, not unless it was necessary to do so, and that's what's true here.

John G. Roberts 3:21

Well, if you're talking about necessary to do so, and again, you're forcing me back to the merger doctrine, and that's fine. But the only reason that there's only one way to do it is because Sun and Oracle's product expression was very successful. There were a lot of ways to do it when they did it. And the fact that everybody, the programmers really liked it, and that's what everybody used, It seems a bit much to penalize them for that.

William W. Goldstein 3:55

Well, we don't intend to penalize them, sir. But our point is that in the language of Section 102B, they may well have come up with a novel method of operation. They may have created one, but they don't get the rights to it. That is a patent-like right. I suppose, just as your point illustrates, in Baker v. Selden, you could have said, well, Mr. Selden came up with a very innovative form of bookkeeping, And other people could have used a different one, but that was not enough to give him a