What happens if google loses to oracle

The crux of the legal battle was how this control is exerted and how far it extends. No one denied that Oracle has a valid copyright on the language and API specification. This is a good thing. When it released Android in , Google added software and hardware development to its existing internet service business. If its products were going to succeed, they needed to be able to run lots of interesting programs.

Java is a natural choice. The alternative would have been to create a new language , but that pathway is fraught with difficulties. Introducing a new language requires convincing programmers that it is worth using and giving them time and resources to learn the language.

Rather than commissioning Oracle to write it, Google wrote the software in-house, customizing it for cellphone hardware. Both Android and Oracle support the Java. The majority of judges agreed that Google's copying of the Java code - in the particular way it was used - was "a fair use of that material". But the judges disagreed on how to apply traditional copyright law to computer code. Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, acknowledged that it is "difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technological world".

But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that allowing fair use simply because it allows new products to be created effectively redefines the idea. He also lamented that the majority had decided not to rule on whether code was copyrightable, instead saving the question for another day and relying on fair use instead. Section b of the Copyright Act says that no one can copyright an "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery.

Hence, Google didn't purchase a license from Sun, leading to a lawsuit a few years later. This is a widespread practice in the software industry. Oracle, for example, re-implemented Amazon's S3 API so that customers who built software for Amazon's cloud platform could easily switch to Oracle's rival cloud platform. Oracle's strategy throughout the year legal battle has been to essentially deny that there is anything special about APIs.

In Oracle's view, an API specification—essentially just a list of function names and argument types—is computer code that can be copyrighted just as any other code can. Oracle claims that if the courts strip API specifications of copyright protection, lawyers could use the same arguments to weaken copyright protections for any computer program. Arguably Goldstein's most important task here—and throughout Wednesday's argument—was to convince justices that there was an important difference between APIs and other code and that this difference had legal implications.

The only way to make it stick is to be nuanced about what it means to declare code. CNNMoney Sponsors. SmartAsset Paid Partner. These are your 3 financial advisors near you This site finds and compares 3 financial advisors in your area Check this off your list before retirement: talk to an advisor Answer these questions to find the right financial advisor for you Find CFPs in your area in 5 minutes. NextAdvisor Paid Partner.