Scribd
Upload
13 views4 pages

RM SKBF

RM_SKBf

Uploaded by

shivu.asrj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views4 pages

RM SKBF

RM_SKBf

Uploaded by

shivu.asrj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

DAYANANDA SAGAR ACADEMY OF

TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT


Affiliated to VTU Approved by AICTE
Accredited by NAAC with A+ Grade 6 Programs Accredited by NBA
(CSE, ISE, ECE, EEE, MECH, CIVIL

Report
on

“Case Study and Analysis about Intellectual


Property Rights”
with respect to the course
Research Methodology and Intellectual Property Rights [BRMK557]

Academic Year : 2023-2024

Submitted by,

Name : Saiyam Kumar Biswas

USN : 1DT22CG035

Branch : CSD

Semester : 5th Sem

Submitted to:

Mrs. Chaitra B V
Assistant Professor,
Dept. of CSD, DSATM.
Case Study Report About Intellectual Property Rights
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

Introduction
This case is one of the most significant intellectual property disputes in the
software industry. It centers around allegations of copyright infringement
involving Google's use of Oracle's Java APIs in the development of the
Android operating system. The case underscores critical questions about
the scope of copyright protection in the context of software development.

Summary of Facts

• Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court

• Date of Ruling: April 5, 2021

• Plaintiff: Oracle America, Inc., the owner of the Java programming


language, acquired from Sun Microsystems in 2010.

• Defendant: Google LLC, a leading technology company and


developer of the Android operating system.

• Allegation: Oracle alleged that Google infringed on its copyrights by


using 11,500 lines of Java API code without authorization in its
Android operating system.

• Legal Basis: U.S. Copyright Act, particularly the doctrines of fair


use and transformative use.
Arguments by Parties
Plaintiff (Oracle America, Inc.):

1. Claimed ownership of the Java APIs, asserting that they are protected
under copyright law.

2. Argued that Google could have licensed the code but chose not to,
depriving Oracle of significant revenue.

3. Stated that Google’s use of the APIs in Android was purely


commercial and not transformative.

Defendant (Google LLC):

1. Asserted that APIs are functional in nature and not eligible for
copyright protection.

2. Claimed its use of the Java APIs constituted "fair use" because it
adapted the APIs to create a new platform for smartphones.

3. Argued that the Android platform expanded Java’s reach, ultimately


benefiting Oracle’s ecosystem.

Judgment
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Google, with a 6-2 decision
declaring that Google’s use of the Java APIs was lawful under the doctrine
of fair use. Key findings of the court included:
1. The nature of the Java APIs was deemed functional, making them
less eligible for full copyright protection.

2. Google’s adaptation of the APIs was seen as a transformative use,


creating a new and innovative platform (Android).
3. The court emphasized the importance of balancing copyright
protections with fostering innovation.
Legal Implications

This case has far-reaching implications for the technology industry and
intellectual property law:
1. Copyright Scope: The ruling clarified the extent to which software
interfaces like APIs can be protected under copyright law.

2. Innovation vs. IP Rights: It highlighted the need to balance


intellectual property protections with fostering technological
innovation.

3. Fair Use Doctrine: The decision expanded the application of the fair
use doctrine, especially in the context of transformative and
functional works.

Conclusion
The Google v. Oracle case serves as a landmark in intellectual property
law, particularly for the software and technology sectors. It reinforces the
principles of fair use in fostering innovation while emphasizing the
importance of protecting intellectual property to encourage investment in
creative efforts. The decision ensures that developers have the flexibility to
build upon existing technologies, driving further advancements in the
industry.

You might also like