Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021),[1] was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law.

The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle (through subsidiary, Oracle America, Inc., originating from Sun Microsystems), within early versions of the Android operating system by Google.

Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code[citation needed], and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

Oracle initiated the suit arguing that the APIs were copyrightable, seeking US$8.8 billion in damages from Google's sales and licensing of the earlier infringing versions of Android.

Sun retained strong control over the language and standards itself, licensing the necessary elements like TCKs for commercial users.

[7] Android, Inc. was founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White to develop a mobile phone platform.

Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt had approached Sun's president Jonathan I. Schwartz about licensing the Java libraries for use in Android.

Schmidt said Google would have paid for that license, but they were concerned that Sun had also requested some shared control of Android along with the fee.

[13] Because of these differences of view, the negotiations failed to reach a deal and Sun refused Google a license for Java.

[13] At this point in time, the OpenJDK implementation offered by Sun was not as mature or complete as the Java Standard Edition.

[14] Google released a beta of the Android platform on November 5, 2007 then, one week later, the software development kit (SDK) which they noted included some Java technologies.

[17][18][19] Sun's president Schwartz congratulated Google the same day, saying they had "strapped another set of rockets to the community's momentum – and to the vision defining opportunity across our (and other) planets.

[21] Besides allowing them to enter the hardware business, Oracle's CEO Larry Ellison called the Java language "the single most important software asset we have ever acquired".

[11] After two weeks of testimony, the jury found on May 7, 2012, that Google had infringed on the copyright related to the code, SSO, and documentation of the APIs as well as the rangeCheck function, but were deadlocked on whether these uses fell within fair use.

[43] The court noted that Copyright Act provides protection to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (p. 17).

This led the court to conclude "that the overall structure of Oracle's API packages is creative, original, and resembles a taxonomy" (p. 14).

It therefore reversed the district court's decision on the central issue, holding that the "structure, sequence and organization" of an API is copyrightable.

[49][50][51][52][53][54] On May 26, 2016, the jury found that Android did not infringe Oracle-owned copyrights because its re-implementation of 37 Java APIs was protected by fair use.

[55] Oracle announced its intention to appeal,[55] but before doing so, it attempted unsuccessful motions to disregard the jury verdict,[56] and then to hold a re-trial.

Judge O'Malley quoted the Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569 (1994) in her opinion, noting that: [i]n truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout.

The Appeals Court found that Google's use of API code declarations had not met any of the four current criteria for fair use, but was merely untransformed reuse.

[60] Instead, the Court found that Google's purpose had been to enhance its nascent Android platform's attractiveness to existing developers, who were often familiar with Java, and to avoid the "drudgery" of rewriting the code (which they could have done) needed to implement the 170 lines of API detail which were indeed required.

The Court found that "The fact that Android is free of charge does not make Google's use of the Java API packages noncommercial".

In relevant part, Oracle charges a licensing fee to those who want to use the APIs in a competing platform or embed them in an electronic device.

[63] In orders issued in April 2019, the Court asked the Solicitor General of the United States to file an amicus brief to outline the government's stance on the case.

Microsoft, Mozilla Corporation, Red Hat Inc., and others filed amicus briefs in support of Google's position.

Justice Gorsuch was also seen to focus heavily on the Seventh Amendment arguments and whether the Federal Circuit's ruling to overturn the trial court's jury verdict was proper.

Breyer's opinion began with the assumption that the APIs may be copyrightable, and thus proceeded with a review of the four factors that contributed to fair use:[77][78] Breyer determined that Google's use of the APIs had met all four factors, and that Google used "only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program".

A ruling favoring Oracle could have had significant effects on past and future software development given the prolific use of APIs.

This scenario would mean moving away from the current trends in software development which have focused on improving interoperability between different services, allowing apps to communicate with one another, and creating more integrated platforms for end users.