« Boilerplate Collusion: Clause Aggregation, Antitrust Law & Contract Governance | Main | Justice Jackson's Opinion Is An Outlier »

Tuesday, April 06, 2021

Google/Oracle

A lot of great commentary on the long awaited SCOTUS decision. It is a win for more competition and innovation. Mark Lemley's discussion of the case and its broader implications is a good place to start if you haven't been following. Here is the Marketplace conversation with Lemley.

Posted by Orly Lobel on April 6, 2021 at 01:09 PM | Permalink

Comments

g commercial nature of Google’s copying. In 2015 alone, the year before the fairuse trial, Google earned $18 billion from Android. That number has no doubt dramatically increased as Android has grown to dominate the global market share.9 On this scale, Google’s use of Oracle’s declaring code weighs heavil

Posted by: pgslot gaming | Apr 13, 2021 9:33:08 PM

d created a mobile operating system now in over 2.5 billion actively used devices, earning tens of billions of dollars every year. If these eff

Posted by: Pgslot | Apr 13, 2021 9:32:49 PM

If the majority is going to speculate about what Oracle might do, it at least should consider what Google has done. The majority expresses concern that Oracle might abuse its copyright protection

Posted by: pg slot | Apr 13, 2021 9:32:29 PM

FOR MORE BACKGROUND, SEE:

Student Started Google v Oracle Supreme Court Battle
Decision Shows How Law Has to Evolve to Govern New Situations
https://bit.ly/2Q3cRoZStudent

Posted by: LawProf John Banzhaf | Apr 6, 2021 9:29:31 PM

Пример с современными платформами, которые получают сильную популярность в последнее время меня вдохновляет, в этом можно найти не только свое хобби https://777spinslot.com/20-pounds-free-no-deposit/

Posted by: Some | Apr 6, 2021 3:19:03 PM

https://www.google.com/

Posted by: Some | Apr 6, 2021 3:17:04 PM

Just again, putting the second citation, not correctly posted. Here:

If the majority is going to speculate about what Oracle might do, it at least should consider what Google has done. The majority expresses concern that Oracle might abuse its copyright protection (on outdated Android versions) and
“‘attempt to monopolize the market.’” Ante, at 34–35. But it is Google that recently was fined a record $5 billion for abusing Android to violate antitrust laws. Case AT.40099, Google Android, July 18, 2018 (Eur. Comm’n-Competition); European Comm’n Press Release, Commission Fines Google €4.34 Billion for Illegal Practices Regarding Android Mobile Devices to Strengthen Dominance of Google’s Search Engine, July 18, 2018. Google controls the most widely used mobile operating system in the world. And if companies may now freely copy libraries of declaring code whenever it is more convenient than writing their own, others will likely hesitate to spend the resources Oracle did to create intuitive, well-organized libraries that attract programmers and could compete with Android. If the majority is worried about monopolization, it ought to consider whether Google is the greater threat. By copying Oracle’s work, Google decimated Oracle’s market and created a mobile operating system now in over 2.5 billion actively used devices, earning tens of billions of dollars every year. If these effects on Oracle’s potential market favor Google, something is very wrong with our fair The second-most important factor—“the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” §107(1)—requires us to consider whether use was “commercial” and whether it was “transformative.” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 578–579. Both aspects heavily favor Oracle. Begin with the overwhelming commercial nature of Google’s copying. In 2015 alone, the year before the fairuse trial, Google earned $18 billion from Android. That number has no doubt dramatically increased as Android has grown to dominate the global market share.9 On this scale, Google’s use of Oracle’s declaring code weighs heavily—if not decisively—against fair use.

Posted by: El roam | Apr 6, 2021 3:16:35 PM

https://www.google.com/

Posted by: Some | Apr 6, 2021 3:12:32 PM

The link left by me to the ruling, is "pale", and looks not active one. One may copy and past it to browser, or I shall leave here, another one:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

Posted by: El roam | Apr 6, 2021 3:07:35 PM


Very important ruling indeed. That article or interview, doesn't address obviously, the dissenting reasoning (Justice Thomas, and Alito):

Bit complicated, but, it is argued, that that distinction between "declaring code" and "implementing code" is legally wrong here in the analysis of the majority, I quote:

"The majority, however, uses this factor to create a distinction between declaring and implementing code that in effect removes copyright protection from declaring code. It concludes that, unlike implementing code, declaring code is far “from the core of copyright” because it becomes valuable only when third parties (computer programmers) value it and because it is “inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas.” Ante, at 23–24."

End of quotation:

But, not less interesting, the business arguments let's call it so, invoked by Justice Thomas, all against Google obviously. I quote some:

If the majority is going to speculate about what Oracle might do, it at least should consider what Google has done. The majority expresses concern that Oracle might abuse its copyright protection (on outdated Android versions) and
“‘attempt to monopolize the market.’” Ante, at 34–35. But it is Google that recently was fined a record $5 billion for abusing Android to violate antitrust laws. Case AT.40099, Google Android, July 18, 2018 (Eur. Comm’n-Competition); European Comm’n Press Release, Commission Fines Google €4.34 Billion for Illegal Practices Regarding Android Mobile Devices to Strengthen Dominance of Google’s Search Engine, July 18, 2018. Google controls the most widely used mobile operating system in the world. And if companies may now freely copy libraries of declaring code whenever it is more convenient than writing their own, others will likely hesitate to spend the resources Oracle did to create intuitive, well-organized libraries that attract programmers and could compete with Android. If the majority is worried about monopolization, it ought to consider whether Google is the greater threat. By copying Oracle’s work, Google decimated Oracle’s market and created a mobile operating system now in over 2.5 billion actively used devices, earning tens of billions of dollars every year. If these effects on Oracle’s potential
market favor Google, something is very wrong with our fair The second-most important factor—“the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,”
§107(1)—requires us to consider whether use was “commercial” and whether it was “transformative.” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 578–579. Both aspects heavily favor Oracle. Begin with the overwhelming commercial nature of Google’s copying. In 2015 alone, the year before the fairuse trial, Google earned $18 billion from Android. That number has no doubt dramatically increased as Android has grown to dominate the global market share.9 On this scale, Google’s use of Oracle’s declaring code weighs heavily—if not decisively—against fair use.

For the rest, we won't stay young no more....

Here to the ruling by the way:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Apr 6, 2021 3:03:13 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.