Monday, April 5th, 2021
Oracle rejection in the Supreme Court
Google achieves final victory in the Java dispute
The online giants Alphabet and Oracle have been fighting in court for years. The question is whether the Google Group illegally used the Java programming language for its mobile phone operating system Android. Now there is a decision.
This judgment could have repercussions on the entire software industry: The US Internet giant Google has won a billion-dollar copyright dispute with the software company Oracle over the programming language Java. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that Google’s use of Java did not violate copyright law. Rather, Google’s approach represents a so-called appropriate use of the software. This is a great victory for Google and its parent company Alphabet. Some software developers feared that if Oracle had won, there would be a surge in copyright lawsuits.
Oracle has owned the Java programming language since purchasing Sun Microsystems in 2010 and was brought to court against Google in the same year. The software company accuses the Internet giant of using elements of Java for its Android mobile phone operating system, thereby violating copyright law. The software manufacturer demanded more than nine billion dollars (7.6 billion euros) in compensation from Google.
Google rejects the allegations and points out that Sun Microsystems once welcomed the use of Java. Specifically, the dispute is about programming interfaces that enable programs and apps to work together. Google and other Silicon Valley companies warn that should copyright be extended to programming interfaces, this will hamper innovation. The company had used around 11,000 lines of software code in the Java programming language for Android. The advantage of the programming language is, among other things, that one and the same program can run on different computer systems.
The dispute between Google and Oracle went through the courts for years. In 2018, an appeals court ruled Oracle. The Supreme Court in Washington overturned the decision with a majority of six to two judges’ votes.
.