Short Reads

Oracle wins in US copyright case: consequences for EU softwaremarket?

Oracle wins in US copyright case: consequences for EU softwaremarket?

Oracle wins in US copyright case: consequences for EU softwaremarket?

18.04.2018 NL law

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled in a dispute between technology giants Google and Oracle that commenced in 2010. As a result, Google may have  to pay up to 8.8 billion dollars, for using elements of Oracle's Java programming code for the development of its smartphone operating system, Android.

The decision has raised more than a few eyebrows, and many software developers fear the ruling risks limiting innovation, development speed and quality in the software industry. In this blog, we will briefly highlight important elements of the case, analyse what consequences this ruling may have on the development of software and compare the legal framework with European Law.

1. What occurred prior to the case

Java SE is a programming language originally developed in the '90s by Sun Microsystems, which was aquired by Oracle in 2010. As a result, Oracle owns all their patents and copyrights including Java. Afterwards, Java could be used for free for general purpose computing. However, Oracle charged customers with special licenses for commercial use of their programs. In this case, Google used certain parts of Java in their development of Android, specifically the declaring code and the structure, sequence and organisation of 37 Java API Packages , without having agreed on a license required to use these API's for commercial ends Oracle claimed Google infringed on their copyright by doing so.

In an earlier decision, the same federal court ruled that APIs are copyrightable. However, the lower court (and many software developers) stated that API's are not protected by copyright as they simply are a method of operation which carry out pre-assigned functions and are separate from the underlying code which makes up the software. The Federal Circuit Court disagreed, stating that the declaring code and the structure, sequence and organisation of an API were elements that "may nevertheless contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection". In this case, the function names and other signals which were copied by Google in the form of 11,500 lines of code were deemed copyrightable.

2. The Federal Court

In the recent case, Google had to justify their infringement of the now-copyright protected parts of the Java APIs. The company attempted this through the 'fair use' defense. Codified in Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act, the fair use defense is a limited exception to the absolute right that a copyright owner has in his or her work. Whether fair use can be accepted depends on four factors:

•           the purpose and character of your use, focussing on whether the use is commercial and the new work created is transformative.

•           the nature of the copyrighted work.

•           the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

•           the effect of the use upon the potential market.

The Court rejected the 'fair use' argument. As Google made more than $42 billion dollars through advertisements, the Court could not agree with Google's reasoning that they were using the code in Android for non-commercial purposes. Android is also not transformative, according to the Court. Google's copying of Oracle's original material – regardless of how small the amount of the material – and moving it from a desktop platform to a smartphone platform cannot be seen as sufficiently transformative. Indeed, Oracle  had even attempted to implement Java in smartphones themselves,  through their line of SavaJe phones. Lastly, the Court opined that Oracle had suffered considerable loss by being limited in entering many actual and potential markets.

3. Consequences of the case

This decision will have major consequences for the American software industry. As API's are used to enable interoperability between programs, programmers now either have to create software with interfaces created by themselves or they will have to get a license to use elements of other API's. This could lead to start-ups being deterred in writing software as such licenses increase development costs. This contrasts with the idea behind API's, which were developed to stimulate programming as many programs could use the basic functions and tools provided by these type of open source software. Moreover, it seems that Oracle is not stopping at Google. More companies are being targeted by the company for utilizing Java functions. The question now is if more US companies will catch wind of this new possibility to assert their copyright on minor elements of computer programs such as API's.

4. Trouble in European Paradise?

In Europe there is a different view on copyright when it comes to software. In the SAS Institute / World Programming case, the ECJ ruled that copyright on software only protects the source code of software, which is the specific, unique implementation of that function. Functional aspects, such as programming language and formatting of data files, are not protected. this means that Google would not have been in trouble in Europe.

Nor would other European software developers be. As functional aspects of software are not protected by copyright, programmers can continue to utilize functional elements of each other's API's (within reasonable limits). As long as the functions used are not reflected in the source code, EU-Member State courts should tolerate the use of these tools. Although, to be certain, a clear and comprehensive licensing agreement is always advisable

Authors: Itai Siegel & Joe Jay de Haas

Related news

07.08.2019 NL law
Roderik Vrolijk and Soeradj Ramsanjhal in Global Legal Insights - FinTech Edition 2019

Articles - Roderik Vrolijk and Soeradj Ramsanjhal have contributed to the 2019 FinTech edition of Global Legal Insights (GLI), providing the Netherlands chapter. The GLI FinTech 2019 edition covers approaches and developments in the FinTech sector with respect to regulatory and insurance technology, regulatory bodies, key regulations and regulatory approaches, restrictions and cross-border business in 26 jurisdictions.

Read more

23.07.2019 LU law
The Revised CSSF Cloud Circular

Articles - On 27 March 2019, the Luxembourg supervisory authority for the financial sector (the Commission de surveillance du secteur financier or CSSF) published the long-awaited CSSF Circular 19/714 amending the CSSF Circular 17/654 on IT outsourcing relying on a cloud computing infrastructure (the Revised Cloud Circular).

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

22.07.2019 NL law
HagaZiekenhuis beboet voor datalek

Short Reads - Enkele maanden geleden vierden we de eerste verjaardag van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (AVG) met een uitgebreide beschouwing  over de belangrijkste  ontwikkelingen uit  het eerste jaar van de verordening. We concludeerden daarin onder meer dat de door sommigen voorspelde hoge bestuurlijke boetes voor overtredingen van de AVG tot dan toe  - zowel in Nederland als in de andere EU-lidstaten - grotendeels waren uitgebleven.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring